Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Lyte Trip]

I've been wanting to make this thread but am doing so now because of a direct request from Mercutio. I appreciate his rational, civil, logical, and fair approach to debate. Others here would do well to follow his lead.


In response to The PentaCon....a common thing for skeptics to say is:

"But physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony."

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.

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

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

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.

Here is a nice breakdown in regards to the anomalous physical evidence:


Where is the tail section damage to the third floor? Why is column 14AA still intact?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/compall.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/167b.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/close.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/column14AA.jpg

Why are columns 15-20 blown *up and out*, or not damaged at all from the right wing?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/MissileDamage_First_Floor_Wall-0.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/074-large.jpg

Why is there no continuity to the "wing damage" when it tilted up it's right wing?. It looks as if the facade simply fell off in part of this section. Clearly no wing passed through it.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/pent-foam-small2.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/wall3.jpg

Why is the floor undamaged, if a 757 just tilted it's left wing, dropped down on the ground, and skidded under the first floor?

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation2.jpg


If the left wing/engine allegedly tilted and went through/under the first floor. Why is the foundation, the shoring is resting upon, still intact????

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation3.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/foundation.jpg

Here is the RB211 for scale reference...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/rb211535e45tl.jpg



This animation from Purdue University didn't even bother including the engines since clearly there was no physical explanation for their existence:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/174a.gif


And this image from the ASCE report shows how the plane was allegedly tilted and even depicts the left engine digging into the foundation!
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg

So how could the foundation possibly remain undamaged???
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/withoutdebris.jpg






Now everyone is well aware that there is zero evidence that any large pieces of aircraft were found at all and that the only physical evidence of an aircraft that was released is limited to these few parts:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/056d.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/096b.jpg

Other than a few more much smaller scattered remnants this is the extent of it. Nothing else even somewhat substantial was reported.

Although the area that allegedly got hit had just undergone a renovation and had blast proof windows etc.............it wasn't built to be 757 proof.

Here is the thickness and material that made up the Pentagon wall:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/106-large.jpg

There is no reason an entire 100 ton 757 would completely disintegrate while leaving areas within the alleged impact of these walls virtually untouched.

So there you go.

Physical evidence that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

The eyewitness testimony simply corroborates the obvious anomalies in the physical evidence.

The plane did not hit the Pentagon.

[gumboot]

Lyte Trip you have previously demonstrated you lack the ability to correctly interpret photographic evidence.

Don't worry you're not alone in this.

-Gumboot

[Arus808]

lyte, its best that you dont start new already debunked theories when you have alread four threads you've abandoned here because you can't back up your claims.

[DavidJames]

Hey Lyte:

Since you've ignored my question in your other thread, maybe you'll answer it here:

You claim to have sent your "rock solid evidence" to the media and the authorities. How about some links to where the media have published anything resulting from your "rock solid evidence". How about posting some responses you received from the authorities whom you've sent your "rock solid evidence". Surely if you have "rock solid evidence", the authorities would have responded.

What did they say?

[Lyte Trip]

lyte, its best that you dont start new already debunked theories when you have alread four threads you've abandoned here because you can't back up your claims.

What new theory?

All the threads I have made back the same theory and none have been abandoned.

The discussion has simply progressed.

[Lyte Trip]

Hey Lyte:

Since you've ignored my question in your other thread, maybe you'll answer it here:

You claim to have sent your "rock solid evidence" to the media and the authorities. How about some links to where the media have published anything resulting from your "rock solid evidence". How about posting some responses you received from the authorities whom you've sent your "rock solid evidence". Surely if you have "rock solid evidence", the authorities would have responded.

What did they say?

That is waaaaaay off topic.

And I have already said I am not inclined to share that information with you.

I am here to discuss the evidence not report on my day to day activities.

[Totovader]

I love how you point to the damaged floor and structure and say right on there "look, the floor and structure is not damaged".

I mean- it doesn't get any easier than that. You and Merc have a amazing ability to debunk yourselves- and it appears as if you're honing in on that gift...

Kudos.

[Brainache]

OK Lyte, I'll take the bait.

1) If all that death and destruction wasn't caused by Flt 77, what did cause it?

2) Is there any physical evidence for this alternative?

3) What happened to the real Flt 77 and its passengers and crew?

there are lots of other questions that can be asked about your absurd premise, but these three will do for a start.

[Regnad Kcin]

...There is no reason an entire 100 ton 757 would completely disintegrate while leaving areas within the alleged impact of these walls virtually untouched.

So there you go.Not too many years ago I witnessed a crash of a modest-sized military helicopter. I watched it go almost vertical into the tarmac less than two city blocks from where I was standing. Made quite a sound, not to mention an impressive, black smoke cloud. All that was left on the smudged ground were a few charred bits, the total of which would probably have fit in a carry-on suitcase.

The plane did not hit the Pentagon.In searching for my earlier use of the recollection above, I see that I offered them twice before: once on March 23rd of this year, and prior to that exactly one year earlier.

A year of dealing with people who don't, won't, or can't cease from their flights of fancy. And if the JFK assassination is anything to go by, it'll continue for decades to come. And right in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. It's a remarkable phenomenon.

And a waste that I'm done enabling.

[DavidJames]

That is waaaaaay off topic.

And I have already said I am not inclined to share that information with you.

I am here to discuss the evidence not report on my day to day activities.I can only assume then you are a liar. You have not forwarded your "rock solid evidence" to the media nor have you forwarded it to the authorities. You are a coward, a fraud and a liar. This is a game to you. A game you are playing to satisfy your ego and possibly your wallet.

Your game has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with your ego. Why else would someone who believes the government killed 3000 people not want justice, and only post on Internet forums?

[Arus808]

What new theory?

All the threads I have made back the same theory and none have been abandoned.

The discussion has simply progressed.

1) no your theories haven't been supported
2) the discussion can't progress until you answer the many questions you've left unasnwered in the other threads

please dont make new threads until you address the questiosn that have been asked of you and ignored.

[Lyte Trip]

I love how you point to the damaged floor and structure and say right on there "look, the floor and structure is not damaged".

I mean- it doesn't get any easier than that. You and Merc have a amazing ability to debunk yourselves- and it appears as if you're honing in on that gift...

Kudos.

What?

The foundation is completely intact.

Circle this damage from the engine that you see.

[Totovader]

What?

The foundation is completely intact.

Circle this damage from the engine that you see.

You see those blocks- the supports.

Read the ASCE BIPS and you'll see why those supports are there, it goes into detail for every single column damaged by the impact. How can you say those columns remain intact as you're pointing to the building being supported by a NEW support structure is exactly why you're a conspiracist.

[Obviousman]

Could you change the images to URLs instead? I have limited bandwidth and multiple large images really slows me down.

Thanks.

[Lyte Trip]

OK Lyte, I'll take the bait.

1) If all that death and destruction wasn't caused by Flt 77, what did cause it?

2) Is there any physical evidence for this alternative?

3) What happened to the real Flt 77 and its passengers and crew?

there are lots of other questions that can be asked about your absurd premise, but these three will do for a start.

1. Pre-planted explosives etc.

2. All physical evidence has been permanently sequestered but yes in photos you can see columns blown up and out where the right wing was supposed to have entered. Victims that were in the building have said they smelled cordite, thought there were bombs, and didn't see anything that remotely resembled aircraft debris.

3. That's for you to ask the perpetrators.

[Lyte Trip]

You see those blocks- the supports.

Read the ASCE BIPS and you'll see why those supports are there, it goes into detail for every single column damaged by the impact. How can you say those columns remain intact as you're pointing to the building being supported by a NEW support structure is exactly why you're a conspiracist.

Column?

We are talking about the FOUNDATION. Read slower.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation2.jpg

[CHF]

Lyte,

why in your opinion did so many witnesses (including your own) report a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon?

[Lyte Trip]

1) no your theories haven't been supported
2) the discussion can't progress until you answer the many questions you've left unasnwered in the other threads

please dont make new threads until you address the questiosn that have been asked of you and ignored.

What question in what thread?

Bump it.

If it is relevant to the topic I will answer it.

[Totovader]

Column?

We are talking about the FOUNDATION. Read slower.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation2.jpg

And what do you think a foundation is?

If you want to restrict your theory to the concrete floor, and the floor alone- please explain- using strict calculations- what damage you would expect, and why it is not there.

I see damaged foundation, weakened supports- and a hole where there used to be a building...

Then there was that plane, the witnesses, the flight path damage, the victims, the DNA, FDR, plane parts- etc... but I guess you will continue to ignore that.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte,

why in your opinion did so many witnesses (including your own) report a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon?

Why did they report the plane on the north of the citgo?

Only one of the claims can be correct.

Read the OP in the Lagasse/Brooks thread for a list of reasons why it's more likely that the north side claim is correct.

[NobbyNobbs]

I find it highly amusing that Lyte Trip says...

Now everyone is well aware that there is zero evidence that any large pieces of aircraft were found at all

...as an introduction to the 9 photographs of such evidence.

[Totovader]

Why did they report the plane on the north of the citgo?

Only one of the claims can be correct.

Read the OP in the Lagasse/Brooks thread for a list of reasons why it's more likely that the north side claim is correct.

FINALLY...

You admit that the majority of witness contradict your "north of the Citgo" story.

Jeez- took ya long enough.

[Lyte Trip]

And what do you think a foundation is?




:D:D:D:D

Too funny.

Ummmmmm........not columns?
:p


I can't believe I have to do this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_%28architecture%29


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Slab_on_grade.JPG

[The Doc]

Only one of the claims can be correct.


Well why are you claiming that both are?

[Lyte Trip]

FINALLY...

You admit that the majority of witness contradict your "north of the Citgo" story.

Jeez- took ya long enough.

Whaaaaaaaat?

Where did I say anything remotely resembling such a thing?

First you think a foundation is a column and now you are pretending I am saying things I didn't even say.

Are you off your meds dude?

[Totovader]

:D:D:D:D

Too funny.

Ummmmmm........not columns?
:p


I can't believe I have to do this:


So, you're ignoring the columns- in addition to the requirement that you actually support your statements?

Why would you expect the floor to be damaged any more than it was?

(And, by the way- look at your own photographs. You are pointing to the columns when you state "foundation"- which is why I was assuming your definition was not quite so literal. Consider your own statements before you go pretending to "have to do" anything.)

[Lyte Trip]

I find it highly amusing that Lyte Trip says...

"Now everyone is well aware that there is zero evidence that any large pieces of aircraft were found at all"

...as an introduction to the 9 photographs of such evidence.

You call those "large" pieces??

Haven't seen too many jets in your day?

You must be a homebody.

[uk_dave]

Column?

We are talking about the FOUNDATION. Read slower.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation2.jpg

Dear oh dear, Lyte you're no better at construction than you are at eyewitness testimony.

Just a word to the wise, don't mention the lack of damage to a buildings foundations again, certainly not in this context, because it really does not make you look very......bright.

For the record, the foundation of a structure provides a stable base upon which the superstructure is built.

Dmage to a foundation would normally only occur through ground movement such as earthquakes or subsidence.

A plane hitting a building is very unlikely to cause any damage to what is (probably) a mass of concrete buried in the ground.

Also, your killklown impersonation of "where's the damage from the tailplane" further indicates that you are speaking from a position of personal incredulity rather than expertise.

Something to consider with regard to aircraft:

You know that an aircraft derives lift from it's wings, right?
So effectively the wings are supporting the fuselage of the plane.
So, if you wanted to lift an aircraft with, for example, a crane, you could do so by lifting the wings.

I make these points to indicate that the wing structure is not fragile but is sturdy enough to carry the loading of the aircraft.

However, the tail is a relatively flimsy construction, and smashing the tail section into a building at high speed is likely to leave very little recogniseable tail pieces, and the tip of the tail is unlikely to cause a great deal of damage to the wall it hits.

To summarize:

Wings = strong and cause lots of damage as they disintegrate

Tail = weak and cause little damage as it disintegrates

[Totovader]

Whaaaaaaaat?

Where did I say anything remotely resembling such a thing?

First you think a foundation is a column and now you are pretending I am saying things I didn't even say.

Are you off your meds dude?

Why did they report the plane on the north of the citgo?

Only one of the claims can be correct.

Read the OP in the Lagasse/Brooks thread for a list of reasons why it's more likely that the north side claim is correct.

Did you miss it?

And if you want to continue to boast that your equivocation is worth anything- you should at least try and answer the question.

[Brainache]

1. Pre-planted explosives etc.

Not really an answer. You might as well have said "Magic". So no one in the Pentagon was aware of their offices being planted with explosives. If they were, they decided to stay in their offices anyway and be killed. Yes Lyte, killed in a horrific way by explosions and fire. Unless you also want me to believe that no one died there at all. Or were all the people in those offices expendable pawns in the evil perps' game?


2. All physical evidence has been permanently sequestered but yes in photos you can see columns blown up and out where the right wing was supposed to have entered. Victims that were in the building have said they smelled cordite, thought there were bombs, and didn't see anything that remotely resembled aircraft debris.

There was a fair bit of aircraft debris. Hal Bidlack, a man who posts on this forum was there that day. He saw parts of an airplane. He helped carry the dead and wounded. He doesn't share your beliefs. Lyte, is he a liar?


3. That's for you to ask the perpetrators.

It's your theory Lyte. I know where they are. They were destroyed by an impact with the Pentagon.

I was asking how your theory accounts for their deaths. I see you don't feel your theory needs to acount for all the facts, just poke imaginary holes in reality and pretend like you are doing some kind of investigation.

[Lyte Trip]

So, you're ignoring the columns- in addition to the requirement that you actually support your statements?

Why would you expect the floor to be damaged any more than it was?



Because the official story says the plane was tilted and entered entirely under the first two floors:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg

That image is from the ASCE report.

It's their story.....not ours.

[CHF]

Lyte,

I think the most likely scenario is that your two witnesses are wrong about the flight path and that the rest of the witnesses are right.

As for a plane hitting the Pentagon....ALL are agreed on that point.

So why are you opposing what ALL WITNESSES claim?

[Totovader]

Because the official story says the plane was tilted and entered entirely under the first two floors:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg

That image is from the ASCE report.

It's their story.....not ours.

This really doesn't answer the question. Do you expect the engines and plane to somehow dig in at over 500mph after hitting the edge of the Pentagon?

I'm wording it that way so you can start to see that your expectation is entirely unreasonable... let's see if it starts to click...

[Totovader]

Getting more to the point- you have claimed that you have evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

So far you have only supplied what you see as reasons to doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon- which are all easily debunked.

So far it's all been a large dose of argumentum ad ignorantium- so I'm waiting patiently for you to actually get some evidence.

You claim it was a missile. Where is the evidence of a missile?

[Lyte Trip]

Dear oh dear, Lyte you're no better at construction than you are at eyewitness testimony.

Just a word to the wise, don't mention the lack of damage to a buildings foundations again, certainly not in this context, because it really does not make you look very......bright.

For the record, the foundation of a structure provides a stable base upon which the superstructure is built.

Dmage to a foundation would normally only occur through ground movement such as earthquakes or subsidence.

A plane hitting a building is very unlikely to cause any damage to what is (probably) a mass of concrete buried in the ground.



To suggest a 6 ton titanium engine that slams into a concrete slab is going to leave it perfectly intact is absurd. That's why you went right to the wings and tail. They have the engine digging in the ground.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg




However, the tail is a relatively flimsy construction, and smashing the tail section into a building at high speed is likely to leave very little recogniseable tail pieces, and the tip of the tail is unlikely to cause a great deal of damage to the wall it hits.

To summarize:

Wings = strong and cause lots of damage as they disintegrate

Tail = weak and cause little damage as it disintegratesThe columns are blown UP AND OUTWARDS.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/074-large.jpg

[Lyte Trip]

Getting more to the point- you have claimed that you have evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

So far you have only supplied what you see as reasons to doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon- which are all easily debunked.

So far it's all been a large dose of argumentum ad ignorantium- so I'm waiting patiently for you to actually get some evidence.

You claim it was a missile. Where is the evidence of a missile?

You are out of your mind tonight.

I do NOT claim it was a missile!
:rolleyes:


Apparently you haven't even watched The PentaCon.

Please at least go watch it before you try telling me what I believe.

[CHF]

Lyte,

why do witnesses (including your own) report a plane hitting the Pentagon?

What plane was it if not flight 77?

[Lyte Trip]

Not really an answer. You might as well have said "Magic". So no one in the Pentagon was aware of their offices being planted with explosives. If they were, they decided to stay in their offices anyway and be killed. Yes Lyte, killed in a horrific way by explosions and fire. Unless you also want me to believe that no one died there at all. Or were all the people in those offices expendable pawns in the evil perps' game?


They were victims.

The renovation had just completed and the section was not fully occupied.


There was a fair bit of aircraft debris. Hal Bidlack, a man who posts on this forum was there that day. He saw parts of an airplane. He helped carry the dead and wounded. He doesn't share your beliefs. Lyte, is he a liar?
He does not contradict anything I have claimed. I posted images of every substantial piece of debris that was reported.



It's your theory Lyte. I know where they are. They were destroyed by an impact with the Pentagon.

I was asking how your theory accounts for their deaths. I see you don't feel your theory needs to acount for all the facts, just poke imaginary holes in reality and pretend like you are doing some kind of investigation.We just uncover evidence.

No matter how much you want to deny it; the on site testimony we have obtained is evidence. Rather strong evidence at that.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte,

why do witnesses (including your own) report a plane hitting the Pentagon?

What plane was it if not flight 77?

You see CHF.....that's the whole point.

I know it's kind of hard for a raccoon to understand but the plane they saw could not possibly have created the physical damage so that means it couldn't have hit the building.

The witnesses were simply fooled into believing it did because of the timing.

It was a sleight of hand illusion.

Don't you JREF'ers get into those types of things?

You know......magic tricks.

[Mr.D]

To suggest a 6 ton titanium engine that slams into a concrete slab is going to leave it perfectly intact is absurd.


What about an engine that impacts at a very shallow angle (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bullet+glancing+skull&btnG=Search)?


They have the engine digging in the ground.


That image is not physical evidence, no matter the source.

[CHF]

You see CHF.....that's the whole point.

I know it's kind of hard for a raccoon to understand but the plane they saw could not possibly have created the physical damage so that means it couldn't have hit the building.

The witnesses were simply fooled into believing it did because of the timing.

It was a sleight of hand illusion.

Don't you JREF'ers get into those types of things?

You know......magic tricks.

So...witnesses saw a passenger jet fly overhead and crash into the Pentagon. But it wasn't really the passenger jet that they saw. It was something else.

Is that what you're saying?

[uk_dave]

To suggest a 6 ton titanium engine that slams into a concrete slab is going to leave it perfectly intact is absurd. That's why you went right to the wings and tail. They have the engine digging in the ground.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg


The columns are blown UP AND OUTWARDS.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/074-large.jpg

Firstly, the engine is not ALL titanium.

The engine would have been torn to pieces as it hit the external wall. It was moving forwards above ground level.

If the engine had gouged out the ground in front of the building then this would be apparent.

THAT is why your '6 ton titanium' engine did not damage the foundation.

You also seem to be under the impression that the ground floor slab is the foundation. It is not, so do try to get your terminology correct.

You then go on to use your extensive imaginary expertise to comment upon the condition of the columns. But you, like so many of your brethren have not the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Buildings contain a number of loadbearing elements in their fight against gravity. These elements are subject to loads which, when damage is caused to a structure, will make those elements move.

That the movement you see does not correspond with your preconception of how the building should have looked after the crash is your problem, not mine.

But, consider this:

Just as with the shanksville crash, 'truthers' would have us believe that the evidence for the official account of events on 9/11 was faked.

And yet, we are also to believe that it was faked so badly that amatuer slueths armed only with their own over exhalted common sense can see through this fakery.

That this fakery is not apparent to architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, fire engineers, air crash investigators et al, but is only apparent to yourself and the likes of killklown, should give you pause for thought.

It obviously doesn't, but it should.

[Bobert]

That is waaaaaay off topic.

And I have already said I am not inclined to share that information with you.

I am here to discuss the evidence not report on my day to day activities.

I dont think that he is asking about your "day to day activities".
You continue to mock and piss on the dead.

[Bobert]

I can only assume then you are a liar. You have not forwarded your "rock solid evidence" to the media nor have you forwarded it to the authorities. You are a coward, a fraud and a liar. This is a game to you. A game you are playing to satisfy your ego and possibly your wallet.

Your game has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with your ego. Why else would someone who believes the government killed 3000 people not want justice, and only post on Internet forums?

Bingo!

[SRW]

You call those "large" pieces??

Haven't seen too many jets in your day?

You must be a homebody.

Lyle, are you saying that the 9 photos you show are all the pieces of the Jet found? If not then why don't you show all the pieces found?

Unless you are making the claim that the parts shown are all that is left, why show them at all? Its a little bit like you fell into a wood chipper, and I were to hold up your ear and say This is all that is left of Lyle. Well; if you look behind the chipper there is Lyle everywhere.

So what is your point in showing the 9 pictures. If you say that is all that was found and I find one more piece of the plane will you go away and come back with a bettor theory?

[babazaroni]

Where is the tail section damage to the third floor? Why is column 14AA still intact?


The tail slants backwards, which means the lower section strikes first. That won't leave much left, if anything, to damage the 3rd floor.


Why is the floor undamaged, if a 757 just tilted it's left wing, dropped down on the ground, and skidded under the first floor?


Why would the wing go under the first floor?

It went into the first floor.

[Bobert]

Lytes alternate title for this thread:

"PLEASE HELP!! MY VIDEO IS GETTING REALLY LOW HIT RATES AND I AM
DESPERATE FOR ATTENTION. NO ONE IS PRE-ORDERING MY VIDEO AND EVEN DYLAN IS ABANDONING ME!!"

[chippy]

This animation from Purdue University didn't even bother including the engines since clearly there was no physical explanation for their existence:

How do you explain this?

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m80/911debunker/generator_fence1.jpg

What in the world caused this damage then? This generator was knocked TOWARDS the building. An explosion that originated at the building could not have possibly done this, unless the government somehow learned how to develop a black-hole bomb. And if the airplane nicked this generator and then pulled up over the Pentagon, it would have experienced such extreme g-forces that it would have deteriorated shortly after its maneuver. That's disregarding the fact that the plane simply cannot make that kind of maneuver anyway.

[chippy]

By the way Lyte, how long does it take for a fireball to rise or expand?

[R.Mackey]

As for Lyte Step's complaint about the "explosive"-looking effect on the columns:

The columns are blown UP AND OUTWARDS.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/074-large.jpg

If you bother to read the Pentagon Building Performance Report (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf), you will learn that the damage inside the Pentagon was essentially blast rather than impact. This isn't entirely unexpected given the enormous kinetic and fuel energy of the plane. Few large pieces survived the impact with the outer wall, but a great deal of energy remained to dissipate. I explained this and the evidence therefor in my destruction (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2061604#post2061604) of Russell Pickering's hypothesis.

For the blunted and reading-impaired, this means the damage is wholly consistent with aircraft impact, and not consistent with explosives.

[Bobert]

Lytes response will be:

All of that is PLANTED and PREFABRICATED.

Can you imagine the meeting:
"Ok so we need your company to prefabricate a bunch of damaged stuff"
"Ok we need you to sneak out in front of the pentagon in broad daylight and plant all these plane parts of burned up stuff.....dont worry we will give you the special NWO power that will make you super human so that no one sees you!!!"

[Bobert]

Ooops

[NobbyNobbs]

You call those "large" pieces??

Haven't seen too many jets in your day?

You must be a homebody.


1) Exactly how large do you expect the pieces of such a crash to be?

2) What reason do you have for answering question 1 as you did (will)?

Keep in mind that of any photos of plane crashes you chose topost for comparison, most other crashes occur either right after take-off or just before landing, at lower speeds. Those that don't are generally cases where the pilot doesn't want to crash, and is attempting to avoid it.

For comparison, then, you will need to find photo evidence of crashes at a relatively high speed. And you will need to show that it is typical for such crashes to leave an abundance of larger pieces than those that were found at the Pentagon.

Finally, you will need to show how your theory is more likely and fits more evidence than any other theory out there.

[The Doc]

Lyte seems to think that someone could:

1. Fly a 757 over the Pentagon.
2. Blow a wall of the Pentagon up with explosives.
3. Destroy light poles with something other than a plane, away for the flight path of the plane.
4. Plant pieces of 757 in and around the Pentagon.
5. Destroy the generator outside the Pentagon.

All in broad daylight without ONE PERSON noticing.

"Sir. Operation Pentagon Destroy is commencing"
"Good, are the men ready to destroy light poles no where near the flight path we are creating for Flight 77?"
"Yes Sir."
"And are they ready to place pieces of an aircraft in and around the Pentagon?"
"Yes Sir. But Sir.... what if someone sees us?"
"My god...."

[Bobert]

Lyte would have made a great character in Charlie and the Chocolate factory.

[Gravy]

Lyte Trip, I can't for the life of me understand why you're behaving in such a childish and heartless way. You obviously still haven't taken Hal Bidlack's message to heart. Here it is once again: http://tinyurl.com/f4ykj (http://tinyurl.com/f4ykjFrom)

From the commonly-available lists of Pentagon attack witnesses, I have noted that at least:

99 people saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100 feet of the impact.

25 specifically said it was an American Airlines jet.

34 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

6 said it was a Boeing 757.

6 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 saw the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

37 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 2 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.'" http://tinyurl.com/kth3m So what did Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.

We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area.

I worked with the FBI gathering evidence in an attempt to confirm the company the airliner was from so they could track it back to it's point of origin. While doing so, we found certain religious items from the hijackers. The evidence collection process was filmed by a civilian crew working for Arlington County. Source (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html)

Lyte Trip, what did Air Force Chief Master Sergeant John Monaccio say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.

Lyte Trip, what did Mickey Bell, Sean Boger, Omar Campo, Michael DiPaula, Frank Probst, and Jack Singleton say when you spoke to them? All of them saw flight 77 approach and came within feet of being struck as it roared across the Pentagon lawn.

Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."

http://www.moaa.org/Magazine/January2002/feature3.asp
What did Frank Probst say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.

About 9:40, Alan Wallace had finished fixing the foam metering valve on the back of his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station and walked to the front of the station. He looked up and saw a jetliner coming straight at him. It was about 25 feet off the ground, no landing wheels visible, a few hundred yards away and closing fast.

"Runnnnn!" he yelled to a pal. There was no time to look back, barely time to scramble. He made it about 30 feet, heard a terrible roar, felt the heat, and dove underneath a van, skinning his stomach as he slid along the blacktop, sailing under it as though he were riding a luge. The van protected him against burning metal that was flying around.What did firefighter Alan Wallace say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.

These people lived through a nightmarish reality, yet you're the one who's hiding under the covers. While you're under there, maybe you can spend some time thinking about all the people who have terrifying nightmares because they lived these events.

Real people, in the real world, Lyte. If they can carry on as adults, so can you. Please stop this madness and regain your dignity.

[Bobert]

If you think he is bad here you should see him in person spews this bs ALL THE TIME.

[Arus808]

lyte eidt your images. images should be no larger than 640x480 or a thumbnail linked to the acutal image


and of course you ignore evidence so that you can spout your insane theories.

[Totovader]

You are out of your mind tonight.

I do NOT claim it was a missile!
:rolleyes:


Apparently you haven't even watched The PentaCon.

Please at least go watch it before you try telling me what I believe.

You're right- I get you confused with all the other no-planers.

Still, instead of dodging the question- you still could have answered it.

Please do that now.

[Totovader]

Column?

We are talking about the FOUNDATION. Read slower.



You keep saying this in an attempt to dodge the question.

Whether we're talking about "foundation" or foundation- it really doesn't matter, and it's not a way for you to escape the culpability of supporting your statements.

[Totovader]

Getting more to the point- you have claimed that you have evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

So far you have only supplied what you see as reasons to doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon- which are all easily debunked.

So far it's all been a large dose of argumentum ad ignorantium- so I'm waiting patiently for you to actually get some evidence.

You claim it was a missile bomb. Where is the evidence of a missile bomb?


See how easy that was?

Now answer the question. It's far too important for you to continue to ignore it- and it's far too damaging to your claim to simply assert that you do not need any evidence.

[apathoid]

I love how Lytes physcial evidence of a plane not hitting the Pentagon is actually physical evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

[kookbreaker]

Lyte would have made a great character in Charlie and the Chocolate factory.

"Ooompa-Loompa Conspiracy Loon
I've got a wacky theory for yoo...

[Anti-sophist]

Being a NWO engineer, myself, allow me to conduct a mental experiment...

The easiest way to get...
Alot of realistic looking plane damage
Alot of realistic looking plane debris
Jet-fuel everywhere
Dead bodies from the plane
Lightpoles on entry knocked down
Tons of eye-witnesses seeing a plane
Consistent FDR data... is to crash a plane into the pentagon.

It's about 10 million times more difficult to NOT crash the plane and fake all of this. This is just mind boggling for me.

It's like the famous quote about faking moon rocks that goes something like.... It's easier to develop a space program to get real moon rocks then it is to develop the technology to fake them.

[Unsecured Coins]

I love how Lytes physcial evidence of a plane not hitting the Pentagon is actually physical evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.


:D

[Regnad Kcin]

You call those "large" pieces??

Haven't seen too many jets in your day?

You must be a homebody.A-hem:

Not too many years ago I witnessed a crash of a modest-sized military helicopter. I watched it go almost vertical into the tarmac less than two city blocks from where I was standing. Made quite a sound, not to mention an impressive, black smoke cloud. All that was left on the smudged ground were a few charred bits, the total of which would probably have fit in a carry-on suitcase.Really now. Are you somehow proud of your ignorance?

[Vincent Vega]

http://www.assassinationscience.com/Pentagon.jpg

this picture is one of the best showing the damage to the facade IMO.

You can see the two armored windows (shattered) and spall liner hanging loose where the fuselage penetrated the facade. The remains of that vertical beam would have sliced the mostly empty volume of the cabin in two.

You can see where the wing laden with fuel and engines punched through the facade, removing some structrual I-beams and leaving others and the wing outside that simply disintergrated, while lightly damaging the facade.

[Regnad Kcin]

You see CHF.....that's the whole point.

I know it's kind of hard for a raccoon to understand but the plane they saw could not possibly have created the physical damage so that means it couldn't have hit the building.

The witnesses were simply fooled into believing it did because of the timing.

It was a sleight of hand illusion.

Don't you JREF'ers get into those types of things?

You know......magic tricks."The witnesses were fooled."

"Slight of hand illusion."

2. The big ass plane was extremely huge, obvious, historical, significant, incredible, mind blowing, outrageous, memorable beyond belief, and was the entire focus of the event.

And yet it pulled up at the very last second, was hidden by the momentary fireball, and somehow never spied afterward.This'd all be funny if it weren't so inane.

[kookbreaker]

"The witnesses were fooled."

"Slight of hand illusion."


Translation: "A wizard did it. Don't ask me how."

You know, when David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty dissappear there are lots of theories out there of how he did it, all of which would have work, and all of them depending on a limited view of the scene by the audience.

When David Blaine does a 'Levitation' he depends on the mark seeing him from just one angle. If the mark were to walk a few feet left or right, the illusion is busted. Its a fact of life with many, many tricks and illusions.

YET SOMEHOW THE EEEVIL CONSPIRACISTS MANAGED TO USE "MAGIC TRICKS" TO FOOL HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE, THEIR CAMERAS, IN A 360 DEGREE RANGE AROUND THE PENTAGON!

Lyte Tripper's nonsense reminds me of one of the old complaints about the Randi million dollar challenge. The whiner would complain that since Randi was a magician he would use his slight of hand skills to prevent the powers from working. I would ask the whiner how he would do this and they'd just say "He's a magician...you figure it out." I never got details of how Randi was supposed to do this.

If I pressed them, it'd make them look even more silly. I would ask them how it would work on say a spoon bender. Randi would set things up to prevent slight of hand trickery, but anyone who actually posessed real psychi powers would bend the spoon with their mindpower and leave Randi flabbergasted. I asked how Randi would stop this from happening and they'd get surly: 'He's a magician...don't be stupid' or 'Dont be naive!! He could do it!'. Apparently being a magician confers superpowers.

No matter what the setup, the whiner could never come up with any mechanism Randi could use to prevent actual paranormal powers, had they existed.

Lyte Trip is in the same boat. He'll never, ever, ever, ever come up with a Mechanism for how his plane flew over the Pentagon, fooled all the witnesses, knocked over lamp posts, left passenger DNA inside the Pentagon, etc. etc.

Instead, he will berate us for not figuring out the mechanism for this trick in an effort to hide the fact that what he is describing is physically impossible to achieve. I predict if we press him on this issue he will become more and more surly and aggressive about it. Eventualy, he might try to come up with some mechanism that will be utterly laughable.

But I doubt it. He'll most likely just make harder and greater accusations of us being dumb to cover the fact that his own arguements couldn't possibly work.

[HyJinX]

Simply put...the preponderance of evidence and eye-witness testimony is completely NOT in your favor, Lyte. Your 4 witnesses are simply wrong in their recollections. It happens everyday. It happens to everybody at some point. To build a case on these 4 witnesses which, in my opinion, is some of the most outlandish wooism ever documented...is purely a waste of everyone's time....mostly yours and theirs.

There's nothing believable or acceptable about your theory. It completely goes against rational thinking and rational deduction. Poor research. Unsupported claims. Outlandish speculation and a complete disregard for facts, evidence, hard data and irrefutable proof.

Stop your insanity.

[rikzilla]

Hey Lyte, you're soooo right! Here's something I just found which blows the lid off the Jewish/NWO/Illuminati reign of terror! (http://maddox.xmission.com/)

[Disbelief]

kook, haven't you watched Mindfreak? They had Cris Angel set it up for them.

[VespaGuy]

The witnesses were simply fooled into believing it did because of the timing.

It was a sleight of hand illusion.

Don't you JREF'ers get into those types of things?

You know......magic tricks.

You keep saying this Lyte, but haven't shown how this illusion is remotely possible. You have your little animation of a plane flying towards the Pentagon and dissappearing into a fireball, but you conviniently stop the animation at this point.

What happens AFTER that animation?

How woould it look from other angles?

[Alt+F4]

Three letters that PROVE AA77 crashed into the Pentagon: D N A

You have NO PROOF that there was a chain of custody problem with the passenger's DNA and bodies.

In another thread someone made a point (which you ignored) which needs repeating: Do you think DNA was tampered with in this case only or in all cases involving DNA. Should every rapist convicted on DNA evidence be freed?

[Mancman]

The columns are blown UP AND OUTWARDS.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/074-large.jpg

Are you certain those objects are remnants of the columns and not horizontal wall sections, which have become dislodged and are hanging downward?

[Bobert]

Lyte,
Will you be submitting your "Researchers Editoin" to Cannes or Sundance?

[HyJinX]

Lyte,
Will you be submitting your "Researchers Editoin" to Cannes or Sundance?

...or Rosie?

[CurtC]

Because the official story says the plane was tilted and entered entirely under the first two floors:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg

Wait - you claim that the plane entered entirely under the first two floors, then you support that with a graphic that shows the plane going right into the first two floors? How can you even fantasize that this supports your claim?


To suggest a 6 ton titanium engine that slams into a concrete slab is going to leave it perfectly intact is absurd.
The lower part of the engine first hit the low concrete wall around the air vent, away from the Pentagon. I would expect that to cause the engine to begin a tumbling upwards, but even if it hadn't done that, are you really saying that you would expect an engine to burrow edge-wise through a thick concrete slab for a significant distance? Note that we can't make out the very edge of the slab in your photo to see if the edge was damaged.

The columns are blown UP AND OUTWARDS.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/074-large.jpg
They are? They look like they're leaning inwards and to the left to me, which is in the line of flight of AA77. Note that they're severed at the bottom, not the top, so you might be interpreting an inwards-leaning column suspended from its top, as an outwards-leaning one resting on its bottom. Is that what's going on here?

[DavidJames]

Lyte,
Will you be submitting your "Researchers Editoin" to Cannes or Sundance?
The only people we can be sure Lyte will not submit his video are those that would actually be able do something with it.

Why?

Simple, he knows he will be either laughed at, completely humiliated and possibly face legal action (libel/slander/copyright infringement/whatever). That would seriously damage his ego and profit motive.

Why?

Why are vendors on the streets selling Rolex's out of suitcases and not to buyers from department stores. Same reason.

[NobbyNobbs]

Sorry to quote myself, everybody, but I'm still really interested in having Lyte Trip answer these questions.


1) Exactly how large do you expect the pieces of such a crash to be?

2) What reason do you have for answering question 1 as you did (will)?

Keep in mind that of any photos of plane crashes you chose topost for comparison, most other crashes occur either right after take-off or just before landing, at lower speeds. Those that don't are generally cases where the pilot doesn't want to crash, and is attempting to avoid it.

For comparison, then, you will need to find photo evidence of crashes at a relatively high speed. And you will need to show that it is typical for such crashes to leave an abundance of larger pieces than those that were found at the Pentagon.

Finally, you will need to show how your theory is more likely and fits more evidence than any other theory out there.

[Calcas]

For the third time!

EDIT the images, they are too large. You're screwing things up!

[fuelair]

For the third time!

EDIT the images, they are too large. You're screwing things up!

And you think he cares because? Oh, wait, you are assuming he knows how to manipulate them - when in reality he only knows how to misinterpret them.

[Yaters]

I'm guessing Lyte's next post will be some kind of statement about how disappointed he is in us, watch his video(no chance I'll ever add views to something that ridiculous), and he's not going to bother trying to convince us anymore because we won't listen to reason...right?

[Pardalis]

Hasn't this been debunked like two years ago?

Lyte, I'm disappointed. At least the PentaCon was your own thing, the flyover theory was your personal contribution to the conspiracy idiocy.

Now you're back to posting already debunked junk from other conspiracy sites?

[Freddy]

You're wasting your time, guys. He's already gone, and he won't be back in this thread. He'll just start a new one in a few months making the same idiotic claims.

[uk_dave]

Hasn't this been debunked like two years ago?

Lyte, I'm disappointed. At least the PentaCon was your own thing, the flyover theory was your personal contribution to the conspiracy idiocy.

Now you're back to posting already debunked junk from other conspiracy sites?

It's damage control.

Lyte has his 'north of citgo therefore flyover' theory but keeps seeing it debunked with "But what about the physical evidence and the witnesses ho saw the plane hit the building?"

He feels he can counter the latter by attempting to prove that the witnesses could not see/were mistaken/lied about the plane hitting.

Now he's trying to counter the former by questioning the physical evidence of the crash scene which he can do simply by saying "It don't look right".

Lack of expertise + Lack of imagination = Conspracy theory

[Big Les]

To suggest a 6 ton titanium engine that slams into a concrete slab is going to leave it perfectly intact is absurd.

I'm afraid you seem to have very little awareness of how aircraft are constructed. You describe the engine as though it's a solid block of titanium. It's far from being so. A high-bypass turbofan consists of a traditional roughly cylindrical/tubular-shaped turbojet engine, encased in a larger shell which contains the large-diameter fan on the front, and allows the air to flow around the central engine unit:

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/jferguson/abb.gif

The inner engine is made of myriad small aluminium, magnesium and titanium parts - discs, blades, chambers and pipes - few massive castings or forgings (the discs are probably the most substantial parts and ooh look, there's one in your picture!). All are made as light as possible, and in themselves are very strong. But as a cohesive unit, an airliner engine is not the monolithic block you make it out to be.

Titanium, as Dave pointed out, is used in limited areas, where its properties are required. It's expensive stuff, and not needed everywhere. The outer casing is even less robust than the main engine - it's made mostly of sheet aluminium and carbon fibre skins, with the air-flow space between it and the central engine. As such there is a great deal of space for the casing to crush and deform into - damage easily inflicted in an impact like this. Given the shallow angle of impact, the concrete foundations would likely suffer little more than scrapes as the wing passes over it, whilst the outer engine would be crushed and torn away, the remainder of the engine continuing into the rest of the building with the other remains of the plane, sustaining more damage as it goes.

Think of your car, crashing into a wall (let's all consider that for a moment). It's not a block of metal; it can compress, deform, crush, to a great extent and in even low-speed accidents.

Does that help?

[T.A.M.]

Lyte:

Your ENTIRE collection of so called evidence is crap and here is why...

YOU ARE NOT AN AIRCRAFT CRASH INVESTIGATOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EDUCATION OR JOB RELATED EXPERIENCE TO INTERPRET OR GENUINELY SPECULATE (beyond what a duck might speculate) WHAT THE SITE, BUILDINGS, GROUND, OR PARTS OF THE AIRCRAFT SHOULD LOOK LIKE POST CRASH.

end of story...next.

TAM:)

[Bobert]

Ya but who needs to be an expert when you can just blindly label everything as being PLANTED or FABRICATED and you label wintnesses as being PLANTED or IN ON IT!

[ref]

Ignoring this thread, unless Lyte answers to Gravy's witness post. Since he's so much into witnesses.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte:

Your ENTIRE collection of so called evidence is crap and here is why...

YOU ARE NOT AN AIRCRAFT CRASH INVESTIGATOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EDUCATION OR JOB RELATED EXPERIENCE TO INTERPRET OR GENUINELY SPECULATE (beyond what a duck might speculate) WHAT THE SITE, BUILDINGS, GROUND, OR PARTS OF THE AIRCRAFT SHOULD LOOK LIKE POST CRASH.

end of story...next.

TAM:)

Apparently the ASCE or Purdue didn't bother using any crash investigators either.

Next.

[Alt+F4]

Next.

DNA

[Lyte Trip]

Think of your car, crashing into a wall (let's all consider that for a moment). It's not a block of metal; it can compress, deform, crush, to a great extent and in even low-speed accidents.

Does that help?

If a care was hurled through the air at 500 mph and dug into the foundation like the ASCE report said that engine did you better believe there would be damage to it.

[Lyte Trip]

DNA

Prove it came from the Pentagon.

Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.

[T.A.M.]

Apparently the ASCE or Purdue didn't bother using any crash investigators either.

Next.

So next time they should hire a couple of college kids (I assume you at least went to college) to do their investigating? Bravo.

...and you wonder why noone is giving you or your theories serious attention.

[Lyte Trip]

Ignoring this thread, unless Lyte answers to Gravy's witness post. Since he's so much into witnesses.

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.

[VespaGuy]

The witnesses were simply fooled into believing it did because of the timing.

It was a sleight of hand illusion.

Don't you JREF'ers get into those types of things?

You know......magic tricks.

I'll repeat...

You keep saying this Lyte, but haven't shown how this illusion is remotely possible. You have your little animation of a plane flying towards the Pentagon and dissappearing into a fireball, but you conviniently stop the animation at this point.

What happens AFTER that animation?

How woould it look from other angles?

[T.A.M.]

Prove it came from the Pentagon.

Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.

Those of us in this, SANE, world, do not consider the FBI, or other law enforcement agencies involved, to be the suspects, so we accept their proof, you do not.

ok, so now what?

Go rally your troops...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

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.

embellishing, lying, or more than likely, (3) lead by their questioners AND/OR (4) mistaken due to their remoteness temporally, to the event in question.

TAM:)

[Alt+F4]

Prove it came from the Pentagon.

Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.

Prove it didn't.

BTW, who's the suspect? Names please.

[Lyte Trip]

Hasn't this been debunked like two years ago?

Lyte, I'm disappointed. At least the PentaCon was your own thing, the flyover theory was your personal contribution to the conspiracy idiocy.

Now you're back to posting already debunked junk from other conspiracy sites?'

Nobody has talked about the lack of damage to the foundation.

But this thread is purely a response to Mercurtio's request.

[Alt+F4]

Lyte, you're the one making the claim there was a gap in the chain of custody of the DNA evidence. Back it up.

[Big Les]

If a care was hurled through the air at 500 mph and dug into the foundation like the ASCE report said that engine did you better believe there would be damage to it.

That was an analogy that I thought you might be able to relate to. Instead you addressed it rather than the thrust of what I was trying to explain.

Shallow angle of impact + fragile turbofan cowl = relatively little damage to the concrete. Easily nothing that would show up on the photos you have available to you.

Do you concede that the engine was not largely titanium, and that the outer cowl was easily deformable?

[Lyte Trip]

I'll repeat...

You keep saying this Lyte, but haven't shown how this illusion is remotely possible. You have your little animation of a plane flying towards the Pentagon and dissappearing into a fireball, but you conviniently stop the animation at this point.

What happens AFTER that animation?

How woould it look from other angles?

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

They were just told it was a different plane.

One that was reportedly "shadowing" the AA jet but veered off and over the Pentagon just after the explosion.

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

Nobody else had a good enough view.

[Lyte Trip]

Do you concede that the engine was not largely titanium, and that the outer cowl was easily deformable?

Yeah sure whatever. It's still several tons.

It would still cause damage to a concrete foundation.

[ref]

Lyte. Why don't you question the people Gravy told you to?

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, you're the one making the claim there was a gap in the chain of custody of the DNA evidence. Back it up.

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.

Of course they had the ability to compromise the chain of command of the DNA.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte. Why don't you question the people Gravy told you to?

We'd love to.

We did our best to contact as many eyewitnesses as we could.

The end result was 13 witnesses total most of which will be presented in the Researcher's Edition.

[ref]

We'd love to.

We did our best to contact as many eyewitnesses as we could.

The end result was 13 witnesses total most of which will be presented in the Researcher's Edition.

Did you not reach them, or didn't they want to talk to you?

[Lyte Trip]

Did you not reach them, or didn't they want to talk to you?

Mostly the former.

[Bobert]

Prove it came from the Pentagon.

Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.

I think it would be safe to guess that there could have been close to 100 people involved in the collection and analysis of the DNA so you are calling them all mass murderers?

There goes Lyte the fraud trip with the good ole truther nutjob arguement of everyone is in on it

[Bobert]

So next time they should hire a couple of college kids (I assume you at least went to college) to do their investigating? Bravo.

...and you wonder why noone is giving you or your theories serious attention.

Lyte DOES NOT hold a college degree.

[ref]

Mostly the former.

Ok. One more question. What would it take for you to believe, that flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon?

[Bobert]

Yeah sure whatever. It's still several tons.

It would still cause damage to a concrete foundation.

"yeah sure whatever"?

Did you get your research skills out of a cracker jack box?

[T.A.M.]

Lyte DOES NOT hold a college degree.

Well then certainly he must have SOME qualifications, I mean he is part of the CITIZENS INVESTIGATIONS TEAM Isnt he?

Perhaps training in Genetics, DNA analysis, Criminology, Forensics, Crash analysis, Psychology, medicine, physics, chemistry...certainly something... some training beyond highschool?

TAM:)

[Lyte Trip]

Ok. One more question. What would it take for you to believe, that flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon?

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.

[Bobert]

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.

Of course they had the ability to compromise the chain of command of the DNA.

Aaaaaah the gold ole
"but of course they did" arguement.
Did you get your research skills out of a box of Cracker Jacks?

[T.A.M.]

Do we need to pull out that video of the jet hitting the brick wall and virtually disappearing into a million pieces again.

TAM:)

[Big Les]

Yeah sure whatever. It's still several tons.

It would still cause damage to a concrete foundation.

Yes, but how much damage? Enough to show up on a photo taken at a shallow angle and from a distance?

I'm labouring the point on engine construction because given the very shallow angle of impact, it seems quite possible that only the light outer cowling of the engine impacted the concrete, along with the main fan blades (easily sheared off).

Have you ever held an aluminium skin or even a whole cowling from an aircraft? It's light, thin, you could distort it with your bare hands. Even the whole cowling assembly would be a fraction of the overall engine mass. The all-up weight of the whole engine has no bearing at all on the damage it might inflict to the concrete.

Given the shallow angle, much less damage would be inflicted. And because of that angle, it's unlikely that the full mass of the engine impacted the concrete.

[VespaGuy]

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

They were just told it was a different plane.

One that was reportedly "shadowing" the AA jet but veered off and over the Pentagon just after the explosion.

But, Lyte, nobody saw ANY plane fly over the Pentagon immdiately following the explosion. Nobody. Not one.

Go ahead and produce ONE person that reported seeing ANY plane fly over the Pentagon immdietely after the impact.

There is a reason why you didn't finish your little animation. It's because it's impossible for a flyover to have occured without anyone seeing it. Before the collision, eyes were on the plane. At the moment of impact, ALL eyes would be drawn to the explosion. And nobody - NOBODY - saw a flyover.

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

Wrong again. The logistics of what you are proposing are simply ridiculous.

Nobody else had a good enough view.

Finish your little animation. Show us what happens to the plane.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, but how much damage? Enough to show up on a photo taken at a shallow angle and from a distance?

I'm labouring the point on engine construction because given the very shallow angle of impact, it seems quite possible that only the light outer cowling of the engine impacted the concrete, along with the main fan blades (easily sheared off).

Have you ever held an aluminium skin or even a whole cowling from an aircraft? It's light, thin, you could distort it with your bare hands. Even the whole cowling assembly would be a fraction of the overall engine mass. The all-up weight of the whole engine has no bearing at all on the damage it might inflict to the concrete.

Given the shallow angle, much less damage would be inflicted. And because of that angle, it's unlikely that the full mass of the engine impacted the concrete.


You do realize you are using big words and that thing called edumacation to deal with this guy right? You realize he has no edumacation in any of the fields in question...right.

TAM:)

[Bobert]

Well then certainly he must have SOME qualifications, I mean he is part of the CITIZENS INVESTIGATIONS TEAM Isnt he?

Perhaps training in Genetics, DNA analysis, Criminology, Forensics, Crash analysis, Psychology, medicine, physics, chemistry...certainly something... some training beyond highschool?

TAM:)

He does A LOT of Tai Chi and plays the drums, does that count?

[T.A.M.]

well if he was on a plane with Jim Fetzer, the terrorists wouldnt stand a chance.

TAM:)

[Alt+F4]

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.

Of course they had the ability to compromise the chain of command of the DNA.

Who are "they"? Again, names please. Let's start with these four men, are they responsible?

1 Captain Glenn N. Wagner, USN – seniorArmed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) officer during the recovery operation

2 Colonel Abubkr Marzoukl, USAF - acting Armed Forces Medical Examiner

3 Lt. Commander Bruce Ensign, USN - AFIP team leader at the site

4 Dr. William C. Rodriguez – forensic anthropologist who determined the race, sex and stature of victims for presumptive identification when necessary

[Lyte Trip]

Do we need to pull out that video of the jet hitting the brick wall and virtually disappearing into a million pieces again.

TAM:)


Haha.

The Sandia experiment was conducted with a MUCH smaller plane against a MUCH thicker wall.

Completely irrelevant.

[Bobert]

Go Get Em Tiger!

[Lyte Trip]

Who are "they"? Again, names please. Let's start with these four men, are they responsible?

1 Captain Glenn N. Wagner, USN – seniorArmed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) officer during the recovery operation

2 Colonel Abubkr Marzoukl, USAF - acting Armed Forces Medical Examiner

3 Lt. Commander Bruce Ensign, USN - AFIP team leader at the site

4 Dr. William C. Rodriguez – forensic anthropologist who determined the race, sex and stature of victims for presumptive identification when necessary

How am I supposed to know? How do you know that these men had perfect control of the chain of command at all times?

You don't.

The citgo witnesses proved the plane couldn't have caused the physical damage.

The chain of command of the DNA evidence HAD to have been compromised.

[T.A.M.]

The wall was thicker than the concrete foundation?

it is relevant

TAM:)

[Architect]

Lyte

Explain the difference between a ground slab, a raft slab, and a foundation.

I shall await your reply with interest.

[H'ethetheth]

Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.I guess you just about summed it up there.

[Lyte Trip]

The wall was thicker than the concrete foundation?

TAM:)

No doubt significantly.

Regardless I'd be willing to bet there was damage to the wall.

[Bobert]

What is that produces people like lyte?
Jim Jones would be so proud.

[T.A.M.]

So you are saying the wall in the Sandia experiment was thicker than the Pentagon Concrete foundation?

TAM:)

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte

Explain the difference between a ground slab, a raft slab, and a foundation.

I shall await your reply with interest.

I have never claimed to be an architect, Architect.

If you want to tell me that one of those variations would be impervious to having a several ton jet aircraft engine dug into it at 500mph+ then by all means......go right ahead.

[Alt+F4]

The chain of command of the DNA evidence HAD to have been compromised.

Prove it.

Code-named "Operation Noble Eagle," AFIP’s team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for over two weeks at the Dover Air Force Base Port Mortuary at Dover, Delaware to identify the 188 victims of the attack. "Our staff represented every branch of the service," said AFIP Director Glenn N. Wagner, CAPT, MC, USN, who served as senior officer during the operation.

The investigation mobilized AFIP assets in many ways. During the hours immediately following the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the acting Armed Forces Medical Examiner, Abubkr Marzouk, Col, USAF, MC, began working with FBI and local Virginia law enforcement officials to create an effective plan for first recovering and then identifying the victims. At the same time, personnel from the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner (OAFME) positioned and staged equipment to begin operations at Dover. Bruce Ensign, LCDR, MC, USN, served as AFIP’s team leader at the site. "We immediately called in regional medical examiners from as far away as San Diego to participate," he said. A total of 12 forensic pathologists, assisted by two AFIP staff pathologists, headed the OAFME investigation team.

Also arriving at Dover during those early critical hours were two other key AFIP groups: forensic scientists from OAFME’s Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) and oral pathologists from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. AFDIL scientists ensured that data systems and records were available to make DNA identifications, while the oral pathology group created a triage area to conduct dental identifications. Contacts were also made with family services personnel in each branch of the military to obtain antemortem information and reference material. Mortuary operations were fully underway by the evening of September 13, just two days after the attack.

AFIP utilized a well-defined and tested system for conducting the identifications of the Pentagon attack victims. When remains arrived at the morgue, a scanning device searched for the presence of unexploded ordinance or metallic foreign bodies. A computerized tracking system then assigned a number to each victim for efficient tracking. FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive devices and conducted fingerprint identifications. Forensic dentistry experts from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology then performed dental charting and comparison with antemortem dental records. Full-body radiographs documented skeletal fractures and assisted in the identification process, followed by autopsy inspection.

At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause and manner of death, aided by forensic anthropologist Dr. William C. Rodriguez to determine the race, sex and stature of victims for presumptive identification when necessary. A board-certified epidemiologist managed the tracking system for data collected during the autopsy process. Tissue samples were collected for DNA identification and further toxicologic studies. Forensic photographers -- essential to any forensic investigation -- documented injuries and personal effects. Finally, mortuary specialists embalmed, dressed and casketed remains prior to release to next-of-kin.

For eight days a full complement of AFIP forensic specialists worked twelve-hour shifts to complete the operation. "This is the largest mass fatality we’ve dealt with in recent years," Ensign said. "We have modalities today that we didn’t have before. Our investigation was much more technology-intensive."

Ensign noted that the entire team worked well together. "Because of the combined effort of all three services and the FBI we were very pleased with the speed of the identification process. Essential records and references were submitted to us in a timely way." Logistical help from AFIP also played an important role. "We had tremendous logistical issues obtaining equipment, especially with additional demands in New York City and Somerset County, Pennsylvania," he said. "Fortunately our logistical support was terrific in helping us get material in."

Others also played essential roles. Histotechnicians from the Department of Scientific Laboratories served as autopsy technicians assisting pathologists with the remains, while special agents assigned by the various services helped in the investigation. "It was a terrific team effort," Ensign said.

Linky:
http://www.afip.org/Departments/legalmed/legmed2002/kelly.htm

[Lyte Trip]

So you are saying the wall in the Sandia experiment was thicker than the Pentagon Concrete foundation?

TAM:)

I am saying that this is an irrelevant comparison as I am certain that both would sustain visible damage from a several ton jet engine being dug into it at 500+mph.

[T.A.M.]

concrete wall standing upright hit by plane....versus huge, thick concrete foundation sitting atop the planet earth, struck by plane...any difference?

TAM:)

[Lyte Trip]

Prove it.



Linky:
http://www.afip.org/Departments/legalmed/legmed2002/kelly.htm

This does not prove that it could not have been or was not compromised.

Again.....the north side claim implicates people in this crime all the way to the top.

If they committed the crime they had certainly had enough access to compromise the chain of command of evidence.

[Lyte Trip]

concrete wall standing upright hit by plane....versus huge, thick concrete foundation sitting atop the planet earth, struck by plane...any difference?

TAM:)

Of course there is difference!

It's your irrelevant analogy not mine.

Bottom line even if the concrete foundation was 10 or 15 feet thick like that Sandia wall there would still be visible damage to the top of it.

[ref]

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.

So you are saying, that nothing would change your mind. You are not looking for truth, you are looking to back up your own claims.

If you would consider truth as your goal, you would take into account every piece of evidence. And further evidence could alter the outcome.

Now you have made up your mind, that you have the truth no matter what.

This thread is ignored. Reason, predetermined theory without a chance of learning.

[Lyte Trip]

BTW I would think that Bobert's obsession with revealing personal details about me and constant inane personal attacks wouldn't be tolerated. Is that really the type of member you guys want here? Clearly he has nothing intelligent to contribute to this forum.

[gumboot]

Bottom line even if the concrete foundation was 10 or 15 feet thick like that Sandia wall there would still be visible damage to the top of it.


Would there?

-Gumboot

[Architect]

Tch Tch Tch Lyte


You claimed that the aircraft should have damaged the foundation.

For your information, the foundation is the section of load bearing wall footing which carries the weight of the building down to a suitable strata, usually a firm clay. In a building such as the Pentagon one would anticipate it to be in-situ reinforced concrete, although masonry would also be possible. It will typically extend to depths of 450 to 1200mm below ground level. The excavation trench will be backfilled, either in selected as-dug material or in a suitable hardcore.

Now, if something impacted the foundation the first question would be what happened to all the earth (and other material) encapsulation it in the first place? Would it have absorbed or disappated some or all of the impact? The second question would be the extent to which the material to the rear of the footing would have prevented severe deformation of the foundation. And of course we'd also want to look at the strength of the founds.

Now go away and do your homework properly, before pretending to be an engineer.

[T.A.M.]

Of course there is difference!

It's your irrelevant analogy not mine.

Bottom line even if the concrete foundation was 10 or 15 feet thick like that Sandia wall there would still be visible damage to the top of it.

1. The analogy is not irrelevent. My analogy is to show you that a thin (compared to the concrete foundation) concrete wall standing (ie the walls of the pentagon) would suffer significantly more damage than the foundation, sitting atop the earth. My reference to the Sandia thing was only to demonstrate that the THICKNESS of the concrete is directly related to the amount of damage it will suffer when struck by a high speed object.

2. Your photo evidence is blurred, from a distance, and in most cases barely shows the foundation itself. I would put good money on seeing significant scraping and gouging, as well as some cracking in the foundation, if proper, good photos were available.

TAM:)

[Alt+F4]

In your investigation to discover the real truth did you attempt to contact:

- any of the people involved in the recovery and identification of the DNA?
- any of the first responders from the fire departments of Montgomery County, MD. and/or Fairfax County, VA? No appointment necessary, all you had to do was go up to a firehouse and ask.
- any of the first responders from the Metro D.C. police force?

[Lyte Trip]

So you are saying, that nothing would change your mind. You are not looking for truth, you are looking to back up your own claims.

If you would consider truth as your goal, you would take into account every piece of evidence. And further evidence could alter the outcome.

Now you have made up your mind, that you have the truth no matter what.

This thread is ignored. Reason, predetermined theory without a chance of learning.

There is plenty to learn about the details of the event.

But there is no question that the low flying passenger airliner that was seen by the witnesses could not have caused the physical damage.

This has been proven.

[T.A.M.]

So you are saying, that nothing would change your mind. You are not looking for truth, you are looking to back up your own claims.

If you would consider truth as your goal, you would take into account every piece of evidence. And further evidence could alter the outcome.

Now you have made up your mind, that you have the truth no matter what.

This thread is ignored. Reason, predetermined theory without a chance of learning.

working backward from a fixed position/view point is what CTers do best, so at least give him kudos for doing a great job in that regard...lol

TAM:)

[Lyte Trip]

In your investigation to discover the real truth did you attempt to contact:

- any of the people involved in the recovery and identification of the DNA?
- any of the first responders from the fire departments of Montgomery County, MD. and/or Fairfax County, VA? No appointment necessary, all you had to do was go up to a firehouse and ask.
- any of the first responders from the Metro D.C. police force?

Our investigation focused on actual eyewitnesses to the plane.

This is what uncovered the smoking gun that it flew on the north side of the gas station.

We did however go to the Arlington County Communications Division to have the police and fire dispatch tapes played for us.

We were even more interested in hearing the 911 calls but they were confiscated and permanently sequestered by the FBI.

The director of that division was not very pleased about that.

[Architect]

There is plenty to learn about the details of the event.

But there is no question that the low flying passenger airliner that was seen by the witnesses could not have caused the physical damage.

This has been proven.


And yet amazingly only you can see this. All these architects, engineers, crash investigators, witnesses, journalists, sceptics, everyone...all fooled?

Jings, is there no beginning to your talents?

[T.A.M.]

There is plenty to learn about the details of the event.

But there is no question that the low flying passenger airliner that was seen by the witnesses could not have caused the physical damage.

This has been proven.

well then, for gods sake, go to the media, go to someone with your PROOF, your undeniable, absolute proof. Society deserves to know...

Go, go on...I'll wait here.

TAM:)

[Lyte Trip]

1. The analogy is not irrelevent. My analogy is to show you that a thin (compared to the concrete foundation) concrete wall standing (ie the walls of the pentagon) would suffer significantly more damage than the foundation, sitting atop the earth. My reference to the Sandia thing was only to demonstrate that the THICKNESS of the concrete is directly related to the amount of damage it will suffer when struck by a high speed object.


You are mixing two unrelated events and not making any valid points. If the engine dug into the ground as the ASCE report claims there would be visible damage.


2. Your photo evidence is blurred, from a distance, and in most cases barely shows the foundation itself. I would put good money on seeing significant scraping and gouging, as well as some cracking in the foundation, if proper, good photos were available.

Huh?

Those pics are pretty close up and detailed.

Here are a few more:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/333.jpg

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/334.jpg

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/328.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation3.jpg


The foundation was undamaged.

[Lyte Trip]

And yet amazingly only you can see this. All these architects, engineers, crash investigators, witnesses, journalists, sceptics, everyone...all fooled?

Jings, is there no beginning to your talents?

There wasn't an investigation.

They were told what happened and accepted it.

[Architect]

You don't actually know what a foundation is, do you?

[Mercutio]

Bottom line even if the concrete foundation was 10 or 15 feet thick like that Sandia wall there would still be visible damage to the top of it.
There is one major difference you are not taking into account. The vector of the forces involved is completely different in these two cases. In the Sandia demonstration, the force is directly into the wall; at the Pentagon, the force is at an oblique angle to the foundation. At the Pentagon, the force is directly into the outer wall, of course, and that certainly shows the damage we would expect. And of course, if the damage was caused by the sort of bomb you seem to think (judging from your "up and out" comment), there would most certainly be force directed down toward the foundation, and there would be more damage than your photograph shows. Look at any of the news photos of IEDs in Iraq, and you will see craters in roads, dirt, buildings, etc.

I think your photo demonstrates quite clearly that the forces involved are inconsistent with the sort of bomb you are proposing. They are, however, consistent with a crashing airplane.

[Architect]

Incidentally, the only thing your photo seems to prove (much to my amusement) is that US engineers use Jenga instead of Acro(w) Props.

[Lyte Trip]

There is one major difference you are not taking into account. The vector of the forces involved is completely different in these two cases. In the Sandia demonstration, the force is directly into the wall; at the Pentagon, the force is at an oblique angle to the foundation. At the Pentagon, the force is directly into the outer wall, of course, and that certainly shows the damage we would expect. And of course, if the damage was caused by the sort of bomb you seem to think (judging from your "up and out" comment), there would most certainly be force directed down toward the foundation, and there would be more damage than your photograph shows. Look at any of the news photos of IEDs in Iraq, and you will see craters in roads, dirt, buildings, etc.

I think your photo demonstrates quite clearly that the forces involved are inconsistent with the sort of bomb you are proposing. They are, however, consistent with a crashing airplane.


That all depends on how the bombs were used and where they were planted.

"Powder Monkeys" as they are called can do just about anything.

You don't get that type of flexibility with a plane.

When you look at these images of the alleged right wing damage do you REALLY think that the damage is consistent with a right wing passing through the building as the official story asserts?

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/074-large.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/pent-foam-small2.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/wall3.jpg




Or are you at least willing to admit that clearly Purdue got it wrong?



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/174a.gif

[Mr. Skinny]

You don't actually know what a foundation is, do you?
I believe this has already been pointed out to Mr. Trip, but I think it was ignored.

[Lyte Trip]

I believe this has already been pointed out to Mr. Trip, but I think it was ignored.

Hardly.

It was totovader that thought the foundation was the same as support columns.

That prompted me to post the link and image from wikipedia.

Sure enough good old wiki was talking about the same thing I was.

I don't doubt there are more technical terms and variations but whatever terminology you use doesn't change the point that it would be damaged after having a several ton jet engine dug into it at over 500mph.

[Mr. Skinny]

Hardly.

It was totovader that thought the foundation was the same as support columns.

That prompted me to post the link and image from wikipedia.

Sure enough good old wiki was talking about the same thing I was.

I don't doubt there are more technical terms and variations but whatever terminology you use doesn't change the point that it would be damaged after having a several ton jet engine dug into it at over 500mph.

Well, I remembered you showed a picture of a concrete slab (in a housing development, IIRC)??

That is considerably different than the foundation for a building similar to the Pentagon.

Architect can explain the difference better than I can.

[Kent1]

Or are you at least willing to admit that clearly Purdue got it wrong?



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/174a.gif

Against my better judgement I'll make a post in this thread.
Yes Purdue got it wrong.
There was a generator hit before the building.

[Lyte Trip]

Against my better judgement I'll make a post in this thread.
Yes Purdue got it wrong.
There was a generator hit before the building.

Ahhhhh!

At least one of you is semi honest.

So:

Is your point that since the generator trailer was hit that this would change the trajectory of the craft before impact?

[Pardalis]

Is your point that since the generator trailer was hit that this would change the trajectory of the craft before impact?

Are you kidding?

You must be joking.

[Lyte Trip]

Well, I remembered you showed a picture of a concrete slab (in a housing development, IIRC)??

That is considerably different than the foundation for a building similar to the Pentagon.

Architect can explain the difference better than I can.

Point is; whatever you want to call it, it's concrete and it is not impervious to a jet engine being dug into it at over 500mph.

[Lyte Trip]

Are you kidding?

You must be joking.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7933608620529423729&q=nasa+crash&hl=en

[Pardalis]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7933608620529423729&q=nasa+crash&hl=en

OK, physics professor, show me your calculations of how the generator would have significantly changed the plane's trajectory.

[Lyte Trip]

OK, physics professor, show me your calculations of how the generator would have significantly changed the plane's trajectory.

I'll let you guys chew on that one for a bit.

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

[Pardalis]

I'll let you guys chew on that one for a bit.

The easy getaway.

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

Prove what wrong?

[Mr. Skinny]

Point is; whatever you want to call it, it's concrete and it is not impervious to a jet engine being dug into it at over 500mph.
Can't say you are wrong, Lyte. I expect any concrete would show some damage if something travelling 500 mph hits it.

However, you need to be much more accurate in the manner in which you debate.

Words have meaning, and if you don't use them precisely, you can spend needless posts (like this one) arguing about definitions of words.


Personally, I think you got 'nuttin, but feel free to carry on.

[fuelair]

I'll let you guys chew on that one for a bit.

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

No, trippy you show us your calculation and therebye prove you have an educated opinion. If you can't, your opinion is worth the same as any other ignorant passerby.

Oh, and given your oral fixation, I'm sure someone here has something you can chew on.:D :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp

[Anti-sophist]

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

You understand how the burden of proof works and on whom it falls, right?

[Lyte Trip]

Can't say you are wrong, Lyte. I expect any concrete would show some damage if something travelling 500 mph hits it.

However, you need to be much more accurate in the manner in which you debate.

Words have meaning, and if you don't use them precisely, you can spend needless posts (like this one) arguing about definitions of words.


You guys just love to argue about semantics in order to obfuscate the debate.

Thanks for at least owning up to it and admitting that my point stands.

That's a lot more than most here would ever do.

Cheers!

[gumboot]

Point is; whatever you want to call it, it's concrete and it is not impervious to a jet engine being dug into it at over 500mph.


How do you know that? Your only contribution to the truth movement is to make a video... and you're not even good at doing that.

-Gumboot

[Mercutio]

Point is; whatever you want to call it, it's concrete and it is not impervious to a jet engine being dug into it at over 500mph.

Seems to me that you have not yet shown a picture that shows no damage whatsoever. If you have, please point it out to me. What you have shown are pictures with far less damage than you expected. The question is, if the materials should show damage, perhaps there is something about the geometry that came into play.

Lyte, take a look at this picture (http://bp2.blogger.com/_aZO31jsDBlY/RhNgPEH98YI/AAAAAAAABJ4/LXZt-HOA1Vc/s1600-h/zz.jpg). Do you recognize it? Can you guess why it is appropriate to this thread? (hint: all the metal bracing is not original to the building. The brick, stone, and mortar are.)

[Bobert]

BTW I would think that Bobert's obsession with revealing personal details about me and constant inane personal attacks wouldn't be tolerated. Is that really the type of member you guys want here? Clearly he has nothing intelligent to contribute to this forum.

BOO HOO HOO LYTE WHITEY!
You are an expert IN NO FIELD RELEVANT to what occured at the Pentagon.
YOU HAVE NO DEGREE IN ANYTHING!
To bad I know this and pointed it out.
I guess you didnt like it.
Well you know what dude...you are putting yourself out there accusing 100's of innocent people of mass murder so sorry if the truth about yourself hurts.
Your reaction just proves beyond a doubt that you have not shared ANYTHING WITH THE AUTHORITIES or THE MEDIA.
You are a fraud.

Oh and BTW who in the F are you to whine about personal attacks when you posted about Totovader (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14832) "being off his meds"

[Bobert]

OK, physics professor, show me your calculations of how the generator would have significantly changed the plane's trajectory.

Come on Lyte break out the sea saw analogy!!

GO GET EM TIGER!!!

[Bobert]

Lyte,
How do you live with yourself?
In the other thread you post this about Llyod the cabbie.
He may be a victim of manipulation or coercion. We have no idea his level of involvement. We certainly advocate having him brought in for questioning
Questing about what?!
What lies are you telling people to bring him in?
Of all of the disgusting things you and Merc have done what you have done to him just proves you have ZERO shame.
You have ridiculed and manipulated an old man.
I am sure you lied and manipulated your way into his home.
You are a fraud.

[Pardalis]

Lyte, take a look at this picture (http://bp2.blogger.com/_aZO31jsDBlY/RhNgPEH98YI/AAAAAAAABJ4/LXZt-HOA1Vc/s1600-h/zz.jpg).

This photo looks like it's been taken with one of those egg lenses (http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=195). Really cool guizmos.

[fuelair]

Prove it came from the Pentagon.

Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.

That works great for people smart enough to at least identify a suspect if they trip over him. Alas, you fail to meet that criterion.


Point though for actually coming back to another scene of defeat for you - bet was in above that you wouldn't.

[T.A.M.]

Yes Lyte please show me a detailed picture of the entire Foundation in the area of impact that shows us NO DAMAGE.

So far you have show some low rez (yes the ones you have show are of poor resolution for the kind of thing we are looking for) pics of a couple of areas that appear to be near the impact zone.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

oh, and by the way, saucy pup,

(1)the two situations/events I am talking about are related, in the sense that both involve the collision of a large alluminum and metal based object coliding with a thick Concrete wall/object at high speed.

(2)My points are valid, at least to most of the people here, in that the thicker the concrete, the less likely to be damaged, and hitting such concrete, when it is embedded and pressed up against the planet earth will likely do less damage to the concrete than if it is standing, as in the pentagon wall.

TAM:)

[Architect]

I note with some amusemment that you appear to have ignored this Lyte, presumably on the basis that those pesky facts and real technical issues get in the way of your theory. Nice but of rounded analysis on your part, sir.


For your information, the foundation is the section of load bearing wall footing which carries the weight of the building down to a suitable strata, usually a firm clay. In a building such as the Pentagon one would anticipate it to be in-situ reinforced concrete, although masonry [ETA on a concrete strip] would also be possible. It will typically extend to depths of 450 to 1200mm below ground level. The excavation trench will be backfilled, either in selected as-dug material or in a suitable hardcore.

Now, if something impacted the foundation the first question would be what happened to all the earth (and other material) encapsulating it in the first place? Would it have absorbed or dissappated some or all of the impact? The second question would be the extent to which the material to the rear of the footing would have prevented severe deformation of the foundation. And of course we'd also want to look at the strength of the founds.

Now go away and do your homework properly, before pretending to be an engineer.

And now I think of it, if the damage took the form of fractures rather than displaced material then it wouldn't show up on your kack-handed photographic analysis anyway.

:covereyes

[Obviousman]

Lyte,

While you are here, could you find out why I was banned from the Loose Change Forum? No warnings - just suddenly "gone".

What did I do wrong? My second last post was:

"You know, as someone who does not support any major conspiracy theory, I am amazed at you guys.

If you put as much effort into organising and demanding a new 9/11 review as you do in attacking Russell / each other, that new investigation would be underway right now (regardless of whether it would come up with any different conclusions).

I know some of you would consider me "the enemy", but you really should listen to some of the reasonable voices that seem to be drowned out in here - stop your bickering and work together... despite your differences."


(bottom of this thread http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5916&st=50)

Have a look over ALL the posts I made to see if anything was inflammatory or abusive.

Thanks for your time,

[Vincent Vega]

I love how an 'undamaged foundation' is proof of explosives and NOT an aircrash. How does that make any sense at all?

[A W Smith]

I love how an 'undamaged foundation' is proof of explosives and NOT an aircrash. How does that make any sense at all?

If anything. An intact floor slab indicates the complete absence of any explosive powerful enough to do blast damage to the exterior wall.

Tripe Lip. wheres the blast crater?

[Vincent Vega]

If anything. An intact floor slab indicates the complete absence of any explosive powerful enough to do blast damage to the exterior wall.

Tripe Lip. wheres the blast crater?

I have always argued that the size of fireball, and relative limited damage to the structure indicated a fuel explosion and not a high explosives.

[Big Les]

If anything. An intact floor slab indicates the complete absence of any explosive powerful enough to do blast damage to the exterior wall.

Tripe Lip. wheres the blast crater?

OMFG!!!111111 You're right! We're expected to believe that planted explosives took down the Pentagon wall, and yet look at the photos!!!! Use your common sense! Disregard all experts, credentials and corroborating evidence!

Done that? Good. Now, note that there's no visible damage to the concrete. That means there was no airliner, and no bomb. Which means...

TEH PENTOGIN IS A HOLLOWGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

[uk_dave]

TEH PENTOGIN IS A HOLLOWGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

You seem surprised.

[chran]

Ahhhhh!

At least one of you is semi honest.

So:

Is your point that since the generator trailer was hit that this would change the trajectory of the craft before impact? What craft?!

So ... now you're saying there WERE an aircraft there?!

And before you start backpedaling, let me remind you, that you just conceded that the generator trailer was hit.

... Yes you did.

[Bobert]

Wow now Lyte says it was hit?
He has claimed for soooo long that the damage to the generator was prefabricated.

I am curious to what others think of Lyte's aviator?

[NobbyNobbs]

You are mixing two unrelated events and not making any valid points. If the engine dug into the ground as the ASCE report claims there would be visible damage.

Huh?

Those pics are pretty close up and detailed.

Here are a few more:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation3.jpg


The foundation was undamaged.

Could you please point out in this picture exactly what you are referring to when you say "foundation"?

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.


As a teacher of physics, It kills me that misquoting Newton's third is probably the most common error aside from the use of the word "quantum". Tell me, Lyte, could you explain exactly what is meant by "reaction"?

[chran]

Bumping for Lyte.

Don't you run away now, ya hear me boy?

What craft?!

So ... now you're saying there WERE an aircraft there?!

And before you start backpedaling, let me remind you, that you just conceded that the generator trailer was hit.

... Yes you did.

[Architect]

Maybe Lyte was right, and TPTB have spirited him away?


Hurraaaah!!

[chran]

:jaw-dropp

:boxedin:

[Regnad Kcin]

Again.....the north side claim implicates people in this crime all the way to the top.Dreamer, you know you are a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!
I said dreamer, you're nothing but a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!
I said "Far out, - What a day, a year, a laugh it is!"
You know - well you know you had it comin' to you
Now there's not a lot I can do

© Supertramp

[Lyte Trip]

What craft?!

So ... now you're saying there WERE an aircraft there?!

And before you start backpedaling, let me remind you, that you just conceded that the generator trailer was hit.

... Yes you did.

Ummmmmm no.

The context of the question was in regards to what the person I was asking the question believes for the sake of argument.

Here is what I said:

"Is your point that since the generator trailer was hit...."

Get it? I am asking him what he believes and at the same time suggesting that if the trailer WAS it then it would likely change the trajectory of the craft.

Can I prove it? Nope. But I can suggest it as a strong possibility to consider. It certainly isn't an outrageous suggestion. It simply depends on the amount of resistance that the 40,000lb generator trailer would have.

Nowhere in that did I ever insinuate or imply for a second that I believe a plane hit the building.

[gumboot]

Can I prove it? Nope. But I can suggest it as a strong possibility to consider. It certainly isn't an outrageous suggestion. It simply depends on the amount of resistance that the 40,000lb generator trailer would have.



Actually it depends more on how strongly the bit of the aircraft that hit the generator is connected to the rest of the aircraft.

In virtually all instances with an aircraft, the segment that made the impact would break off before the remainder of the aircraft changed direction - that's because aircraft have very high momentum but are relatively weakly constructed.

-Gumboot

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte,

While you are here, could you find out why I was banned from the Loose Change Forum? No warnings - just suddenly "gone".



Nope not me, sorry.

I don't get into any of that there.

[Lyte Trip]

Actually it depends more on how strongly the bit of the aircraft that hit the generator is connected to the rest of the aircraft.

In virtually all instances with an aircraft, the segment that made the impact would break off before the remainder of the aircraft changed direction - that's because aircraft have very high momentum but are relatively weakly constructed.

-Gumboot

So where is the engine?

[TruthSeeker1234]

You understand how the burden of proof works and on whom it falls, right?

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.

[gumboot]

So where is the engine?


What engine? From AA77? I imagine it has been returned to American Airlines and turned into scrap by now...

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

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.



Er... no...

The "big boeing" is not the defendant in a legal case...

That may just be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life.

-Gumboot

[chippy]

Ahhhhh!

At least one of you is semi honest.

So:

Is your point that since the generator trailer was hit that this would change the trajectory of the craft before impact?


I'll tell you what it does do. It places the airplane at a low enough altitude such that a flyover is physically impossible. I've shown you the math, plus you don't have to use a whole lot of common sense to know that a Boeing 757 can't pull up by about 50 feet in the short distance between the generator and the building.

[chippy]

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.


Well allow this "prosecutor" to present you with evidence.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/1438.html

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/1652.html

[Lyte Trip]

Yes Lyte please show me a detailed picture of the entire Foundation in the area of impact that shows us NO DAMAGE.

So far you have show some low rez (yes the ones you have show are of poor resolution for the kind of thing we are looking for) pics of a couple of areas that appear to be near the impact zone.

TAM:)

You can deny it all you want but it is clear that these images show no damage to the foundation at all. Some are close-ups of exactly where the left engine would have impacted. Zero damage. Nothing whatsoever indicating a several ton 757 engine burrowed into it at 500mph+ as indicated by the official story. In fact it's so level that they were able to place the shoring there resting perfectly on that exact area holding up the damaged structure.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/withoutdebris.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/328.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation2.jpg


http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation3.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/foundation.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/333.jpg

[chippy]

Lyte, the plane didn't burrow into the foundation. It plunged into the building, parallel to the ground.

[gumboot]

It's quite common in air crashes for engines to bounce along the ground and land some distance away. They seldom bury themselves in the ground.

And most air crashes are into soft earth, not hard concrete.

It's also worth pointing out that those concrete slabs are not the foundations. The Pentagon had two levels below ground. The foundations are well below ground level.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, the plane didn't burrow into the foundation. It plunged into the building, parallel to the ground.

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.

The ASCE report is conclusive that all the damage from the impact of the plane was limited to the first two floors.

This fact and the damage to the generator trailer indicate that if a plane impacted that this had to be the case.

Here is an image straight from the ASCE report showing the tilted plane with the left engine burrowing into the foundation of the building:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/138b.jpg


So:

We've had one of you in this thread that was man enough to admit that Purdue was incorrect in their analysis.........are you going to be the first to admit that the ASCE was also incorrect?

[chippy]

If Purdue University's simulation had the engine scraping the ground, then obviously it can't be correct as we know from the lawn damage that this did not happen. Like those Purdouchebags know anything anyway! (I'm only kidding)

I have yet to see you explain how the generator got damaged, Lyte.

[Lyte Trip]

It's quite common in air crashes for engines to bounce along the ground and land some distance away. They seldom bury themselves in the ground.

And most air crashes are into soft earth, not hard concrete.

It's also worth pointing out that those concrete slabs are not the foundations. The Pentagon had two levels below ground. The foundations are well below ground level.

A. Of course the plane causes damage to the ground as it would the floor of a building.

B. Whether or not there were additional floors under this one on the E ring (which I don't think you know or can prove) is irrelevant to the fact that the engine caused no damage to the concrete floor of the E ring where it would have impacted.

[chippy]

It wouldn't have "impacted" it. It would have "scraped" it. Right?

[gumboot]

B. Whether or not there were additional floors under this one on the E ring (which I don't think you know or can prove) is irrelevant to the fact that the engine caused no damage to the concrete floor of the E ring where it would have impacted.



There is absolutely no way whatsoever that you can make determinations like that. You photographs do not show anything clearly, except that the building was severly damaged.

-Gumboot

[babazaroni]

According to you?

They both clearly indicate that the plane had to be TILTED with the right wing up and the left wing down.


Notice the wings are not parallel to each other. They angle in to the body of the plane. That means the left wing is only slightly below level while the right wing is much higher. The left engine did not need to 'burrow' into the foundation.

[Lyte Trip]

If Purdue University's simulation had the engine scraping the ground, then obviously it can't be correct as we know from the lawn damage that this did not happen. Like those Purdouchebags know anything anyway! (I'm only kidding)

I have yet to see you explain how the generator got damaged, Lyte.

You really haven't studied this at all have you?

In fact you didn't even bother to read the OP.

Check it out again and this time read slower.

Purdue's animation removed the pesky engines all together so they didn't have to deal with this question at all.

ASCE is the one who suggests the plane was tilted and depicts the left engine burrowing into the foundation of the building.

Bottom line if you refuse to accept the notion that the plane was tilted then once again there are anomalies in the physical damage. In particular the alleged engine damage to the generator trailer while limiting the damage to the building to the first 2 floors.

The generator is simply too high. The plane would have HAD to have been tilted.

[chippy]

You really haven't studied this at all have you?

In fact you didn't even bother to read the OP.

Check it out again and this time read slower.


You could have made your point quite easily without saying these things. So why did you say these things?

Purdue's animation removed the pesky engines all together so they didn't have to deal with this question at all.

ASCE is the one who suggests the plane was tilted and depicts the left engine burrowing into the foundation of the building.

Bottom line if you refuse to accept the notion that the plane was tilted then once again there are anomalies in the physical damage. In particular the alleged engine damage to the generator trailer while limiting the damage to the building to the first 2 floors.

The generator is simply too high. The plane would have HAD to have been tilted.

So what are you saying?

[qarnos]

If Purdue University's simulation had the engine scraping the ground, then obviously it can't be correct as we know from the lawn damage that this did not happen. Like those Purdouchebags know anything anyway! (I'm only kidding)

I have yet to see you explain how the generator got damaged, Lyte.

You know, if the generator hadn't been damaged, CTs would use that as proof of no planes at The Pentagon.

You seriously expect me to believe a 757 could do all that, yet this generator remains perfectly intact?!?!

[Lyte Trip]

You could have made your point quite easily without saying these things. So why did you say these things?



So what are you saying?

It's cool if you aren't good at English bro.

What I am saying is that the ASCE report claims the plane was tilted to account for the more obvious physical damage outside while less obvious contradictions like the lack of damage to the foundation and the fact that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to have caused any of the damage are ignored.

[gumboot]

It's cool if you aren't good at English bro.

What I am saying is that the ASCE report claims the plane was tilted to account for the more obvious physical damage outside while less obvious contradictions like the lack of damage to the foundation and the fact that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to have caused any of the damage are ignored.



Can you please stop calling it "foundations"? The foundations were underground.

You're embarassing yourself.

[Lyte Trip]

You know, if the generator hadn't been damaged, CTs would use that as proof of no planes at The Pentagon.

You seriously expect me to believe a 757 could do all that, yet this generator remains perfectly intact?!?!

That's a lame hypothetical generalization.

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

I am not making this up.

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

The eyewitnesses have definitively confirmed the suspicions.

[chippy]

It's cool if you aren't good at English bro.

What are you talking about?

What I am saying is that the ASCE report claims the plane was tilted to account for the more obvious physical damage outside while less obvious contradictions like the lack of damage to the foundation and the fact that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to have caused any of the damage are ignored.


So it's impossible for the plane to have caused any damage to the generator outside?

[Lyte Trip]

Can you please stop calling it "foundations"? The foundations were underground.

You're embarassing yourself.

You do not know nor can you prove there was a basement in the E ring.

[gumboot]

That's a lame hypothetical generalization.

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

I am not making this up.

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

The eyewitnesses have definitively confirmed the suspicions.



Your "evidence" is laughable and self-debunking. No one except you and your little team actually think the evidence says what you think it says.

-Gumboot

[Lyte Trip]

What are you talking about?




So it's impossible for the plane to have caused any damage to the generator outside?

Coming from the north of the citgo and for the damage to be as it was..........yes.

[chippy]

Coming from the north of the citgo and for the damage to be as it was..........yes.

Well we know for sure that something damaged the generator. So what did it?

[gumboot]

You do not know nor can you prove there was a basement in the E ring.


Can't I?

Read (http://www.hqda.army.mil/aoguide/Pentagon_Map.htm)

The first number or letter indicates the floor on which the room is located
(B = Basement, M = Mezzanine, 1-5 = floors).

The next letter is the ring on which the room is located.
(Rings are designated A,B,C,D, and E for the Mezzanine and floors 1-5 plus the
additional rings F and G in the basement only.)

The basement has more rings than the above ground floors, not less.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

If we add all the posts in all the threads Lyte has started, I think he's got Christophera beat.

[Lyte Trip]

Your "evidence" is laughable and self-debunking. No one except you and your little team actually think the evidence says what you think it says.

-Gumboot

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.

[Pardalis]

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

You, Merc and who else?

[gumboot]

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.



In my experience rational unbiased people who watch you video tend to laugh at it and get bored after about 30 seconds.

The Pentacon is one of the worst 9/11 films I have ever seen. I hesitate to call it a film.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

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.

I suppose you use this as your test to determine whether or not someone is rational and unbiased? And anyone who does not agree with your interpretation is irrational and biased?

[Lyte Trip]

Can't I?

Read (http://www.hqda.army.mil/aoguide/Pentagon_Map.htm)



The basement has more rings than the above ground floors, not less.

-Gumboot

Interesting.

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

Semantics.

You guys are obsessed with it.

[A W Smith]

You never answered my question 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 in that slab or foundation. Where the hell is it? Your photos are now proof that a plane flew into the building.

[chippy]

Lyte, what damaged the generator?

[Lyte Trip]

In my experience rational unbiased people who watch you video tend to laugh at it and get bored after about 30 seconds.

The Pentacon is one of the worst 9/11 films I have ever seen. I hesitate to call it a film.

-Gumboot

Yes we know that real evidence is "boring".

Apparently you only watched 30 seconds of it anyway.

We didn't do this to make a "film" that would be critiqued as to how entertaining it is.

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

It's not our fault that they happened to prove the official story a lie.

[gumboot]

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 a bit more than semantics...

Is "roof" and "wall" semantics?

Or how about "horse" and "dog"? Just words, right?

-Gumboot

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, what damaged the generator?

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

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

[gumboot]

Yes we know that real evidence is "boring".

Apparently you only watched 30 seconds of it anyway.



No, I watched the entire thing.




We didn't do this to make a "film" that would be critiqued as to how entertaining it is.


Who said anything about entertainment?




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

It's not our fault that they happened to prove the official story a lie.


You do realise all of your witnesses contradict your own claims, yes?

For your claims to be true all of your witnesses have to be lying...

-Gumboot

[chippy]

Yes we know that real evidence is "boring".

Apparently you only watched 30 seconds of it anyway.

We didn't do this to make a "film" that would be critiqued as to how entertaining it is.

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

It's not our fault that they happened to prove the official story a lie.


If that's the case, then why hasn't this hit the mainstream media, or any form of media?

[Pardalis]

Lyte, let's assume you have a valid hypothesis:

"They staged the damage to the Pentagon."

Now, how are you going to test that hypothesis?

How did they do it? What is the positive evidence for it?

[chippy]

It 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 Trip]

...

That's a bit more than semantics...

Is "roof" and "wall" semantics?

Or how about "horse" and "dog"? Just words, right?

-Gumboot

No.

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

In fact it would probably cause more damage right? Obviously the first floor with a basement underneath it wouldn't be as strong as the foundation against the ground. It would probably break through.

[Arus808]

why are we even arguing with someone who doesn't have the experience to make claims that he is making?

remembe,r he made a film with witnesses who debunked his own film. that's more than enough to show what a tosser he is.

best to ignore and move on. nothing we say to lyte-bright is going to change his opinion.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, let's assume you have a valid hypothesis:

"They staged the damage to the Pentagon."

Now, how are you going to test that hypothesis?

How did they do it? What is the positive evidence for it?

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.

Go figure.

[gumboot]

No.

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

In fact it would probably cause more damage right? Obviously the first floor with a basement underneath it wouldn't be as strong as the foundation against the ground. It would probably break through.



Not necessarily... There would be no give in foundations, but there would be give in floors.

My point is, how can you make broad sweeping statements about the expected damage at The Pentagon when:

A) You know nothing about air crashes
and
B) You know nothing about the construction of The Pentagon

-Gumboot

[chippy]

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.

Go figure.


If that's the case, then why are you spending your time arguing with people who obviously won't change their minds when you should be contacting the authorities and trying to get the word out about this?

[Pardalis]

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

In fact it would probably cause more damage right? Obviously the first floor with a basement underneath it wouldn't be as strong as the foundation against the ground. It would probably break through.


Explain how you came to this conclusion.

[Lyte Trip]

why are we even arguing with someone who doesn't have the experience to make claims that he is making?

remembe,r he made a film with witnesses who debunked his own film. that's more than enough to show what a tosser he is.

best to ignore and move on. nothing we say to lyte-bright is going to change his opinion.

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

The viewer MUST choose which to believe.

I have listed many reasons in the OP why it is much more logical to believe the north side claim over the impact.

Check them out again if you forgot.

[Obviousman]

Nope not me, sorry.

I don't get into any of that there.

Does anyone else have a login over there that could PM a Mod (XXIV or whatever he is called would be a choice) and try to find out why I was banned?

I'm unable to contact any of the mods because I was banned without warning.

[Pardalis]

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.

Go figure.

You could ask the right people in the right fields of expertise, continue your investigation. You can't just stop at eyewitnesses testimonies.

Come on, you're the Citizen Investigation Team! :cool::cool:

You can do it! Go out there and prove your theory.

[Arus808]

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

and ths is why arguing with lyte-bright is a argument that will never end.

he will continue to "believe' that his film hasn't been debunked by his own witnesses. And WE all know that they did.

he doesn't want to listen to facts
he makes up his own facts to support insane theories and ideas
has NO evidence to back up his claims

and it goes round circle in the circle of argumetns you can use against him.

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

[uk_dave]

Not necessarily... There would be no give in foundations, but there would be give in floors.

My point is, how can you make broad sweeping statements about the expected damage at The Pentagon when:

A) You know nothing about air crashes
and
B) You know nothing about the construction of The Pentagon

-Gumboot

Well, he's not going to let little things like being totally ignorant about air crashes and construction to get in the way of him presenting his expert interpretation of the evidence of an air crash and structural damage.

If he did, he'd be drummed out of the 'truth' movement quicker than you could say "Russell Pickering!".