*split* Lyte's proof that the Lloyd England's experience is false

[Undesired Walrus]

Lyte. I would like you to explain the physical impossibility of Lloyd England's claim. I would like you explain the proof that the plane did not rip off a lampost and fly it through his window. Where is this proof?

Now, take a look at this. This deer has been knocked straight through the window. Is a lot bigger than a lampost. Travelling at less momentum (so it stands to reason it could bump on the hood before the window), and it still does not scratch the front of the car. By your logic, you claim that this must have been planted, given it's "physical impossibility". Where is your evidence? Where is your proof?
http://homepages.igrin.co.nz/moerewa/Pages/deer%20in%20car.jpg
Have you spoken to Lloyd England and told him his story 'makes no sense'? Would you have the guts too?

You speak of "smoking guns" Lyte, but Lloyd England is your smoking gun for proof the plane travelled over his head and into the pentagon. So, if his statement is true, you are 100% wrong. Explain how his statement is false.

[Anti-sophist]

Explain how his statement is false.

Lloyd's account must be false because it doesn't agree with Lyte's conclusion. Since Lyte knows his conclusion is true, Lloyd's account must be false.

That was easy.

[njslim]

Geez they have a hunting season using automobiles? Most places I've
been restrict you to rifles or shotguns. What is the bag limit? Bucks only
or does too?

[HyJinX]

You need to use a motorcyle for does.

[T.A.M.]

My question is what caused the roof to cave in on this auto. If the deer went through the window, what fell on top of the SUV to cave the roof down so?

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

My question is what caused the roof to cave in on this auto. If the deer went through the window, what fell on top of the SUV to cave the roof down so?
Someone call Judy Wood!

[Piggy]

My question is what caused the roof to cave in on this auto. If the deer went through the window, what fell on top of the SUV to cave the roof down so?

The sleigh! Duh!

Geez, what DO they teach folks these days?!

[Lyte Trip]

Is this a joke against yourselves or is this thread a gift to me for all the hard work and attention I have given this forum?
:p

If you think apples to oranges is bad you are literally trying to compare a car hitting this:

http://www.uwsp.edu/wildlife/deer/images/deer%20web%202.jpg

To the force of a close to 100 ton 757 at over 500 mph hitting this:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/Picture013.jpg


But your analogy STILL proves my point perfectly!

Clearly the relatively tiny lengthwise deer significantly and visibly damaged the hood of that car while completely destroying the roof.

The deer probably made a desperate leap into the air before getting hit.

Nevertheless there is obvious and serious damage to the exterior of the vehicle that hit the deer while the exterior of Lloyd's car remained in perfect condition without so much as a single scratch!

Now remember when discussing Lloyd's account we have all the details direct from him so there is no need to assume anything.

He claims a 757 caused a more than 200lb 30 foot long pole to spear his windshield and that he ended up stopping his car sideways on the road with much HEAVIER end of the pole still sticking out of the windshield of the car over the hood.

The fact that this is what he says happened is not up for debate as this is Lloyd's account that we have obtained first hand and what he has claimed since day one.

Here is the light pole and cab:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/cabandlongpole.jpg

Here is Lloyd's own illustration of how the pole ended up:

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

And of course the undamaged hood:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/Picture038.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/Picture039.jpg

Remember........he SPECIFICALLY says that the curved TOP part of the pole was hidden in the back seat and that the much HEAVIER base end of the pole was sticking out of the windshield over the hood!

Since the pole is over 30 feet long and it is less than 10 feet from the windshield to the back seat of the car this means that at least 2/3's of the heavier end of the pole would have to be sticking out over the hood.

Sooooooo...

Drum roll please!

The physics of a see-saw most certainly does prove perfectly why his account is impossible.

The heavier end of a see-saw will always be on the ground unless the fulcrum is not in the center but CLOSER to the heavy end like this:

http://www.phy.cmich.edu/people/andy/Physics110/Book/Chapters/Chapter7_files/image026.jpg


But Lloyd describes the complete opposite scenario where the fulcrum is closer to the much LIGHTER end!

In that case we know for a fact because of physics and gravity that the heavier end of the pole would be resting on the hood.

http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/seesaw_leverage_small.jpg

Now I know that this was too complicated for you guys to understand the first time around so you chose to make fun of the extremely rough graphic I made to illustrate the point. But of course the point was then and remains today 100% valid and is a simple irrefutable fact of physics.

Such a claim could only laughed at by the ignorant who prefer to obfuscate and ridicule the facts in an obvious attempt to avoid the truth.

[T.A.M.]

The sleigh! Duh!

Geez, what DO they teach folks these days?!

OMG...you owe me a new LCD monitor, as you just made me spray my current one with Diet Coke (TM).

TAM:)

Lyte:

Nice cartoon...I know it is about the "See-Saw" but you cant ignore the Phallic imagery it presents...lol

TAM:)

[Lyte Trip]

Oh and just in case you guys forgot the facts.......here is the data:

Video of interview with Lloyd we conducted at his house:

Lloyd interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=891765309541526552&q=loose+change+%2B+immortal+technique&hl=en)


Here is an audio file of our pre-interview with Lloyd in his living room:

Listen to pre-interview here (http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/Lloyd1.WMA)

Here are the dimensions of the same style light pole:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/newpoles1.jpg

And here is a video of me physically examining the poles during my tour of the VDOT:

Light pole physical examination video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoypAJ2KD-8)

[Lyte Trip]

Nice cartoon...I know it is about the "See-Saw" but you cant ignore the Phallic imagery it presents...lol



:boggled:

That's aaaalllllll you bro as there was nothing like that anywhere near my thoughts!








Creepy.

[T.A.M.]

I didnt say you thought of it, I am merely saying, when you look at the image, out of context, it is hard to ignore the "not so subtle" subtext to the cartoon (or would that be sub-imagery).

Relax.

TAM:)

[Bobert]

He doesnt pick up on much TAM, its okay.
He doesnt even know that you are female displayed by his bro comment.

[tsig]

You need to use a motorcyle for does.

best tactic is to lay it down and take out the legs.

[Regnad Kcin]

And yet once again we see why discussing, much less debating, with CTers is a futile time-waster. Show them to be wrong, prove to them they're mistaken on any number of points, even helpfully attempt to guide them through the process of scientific reasoning and critical thinking, and you find it's like talking to a cow. It stares at you, but goes right on chewing its cud, oblivious.

The subject of the pole in the car has been discussed elsewhere ad-nauseum. And Lyte Trip has given no ground, even when shown to be as wrong as the day is long. Since he is wedded to his "inside job" beliefs, nothing will change.

Moo.

[Lyte Trip]

And yet once again we see why discussing, much less debating, with CTers is a futile time-waster. Show them to be wrong, prove to them they're mistaken on any number of points, even helpfully attempt to guide them through the process of scientific reasoning and critical thinking, and you find it's like talking to a cow.

I didn't start this thread.

So what about this statement do you disagree with?


The heavier end of a see-saw will always be on the ground unless the fulcrum is not in the center but CLOSER to the heavy end like this:

http://www.phy.cmich.edu/people/andy/Physics110/Book/Chapters/Chapter7_files/image026.jpg


But Lloyd describes the complete opposite scenario where the fulcrum is closer to the much LIGHTER end!

In that case we know for a fact because of physics and gravity that the heavier end of the pole would be resting on the hood.

[T.A.M.]

He doesnt pick up on much TAM, its okay.
He doesnt even know that you are female displayed by his bro comment.

SOrry Bob...I am a guy.

The Artistic Macrophage...lol

TAM:)

[Bobert]

Well if you think about it most of the LCF crowd could care about him, his partner has been banned at LCF, Dylan and Louder then words are probably suing over his vid (hence you can no longer pre-order Researchers Edition), and harldy anyone visits him at the ATS forum.
His 15 minutes are up.

[Bobert]

SOrry Bob...I am a guy.

The Artistic Macrophage...lol

TAM:)

Holy Moly I have egg on my face...I am sooo sorry!
I dont remember exactly what it was but somewhere along the way I thought you were female. :o

[Lyte Trip]

I didnt say you thought of it, I am merely saying, when you look at the image, out of context, it is hard to ignore the "not so subtle" subtext to the cartoon (or would that be sub-imagery).

Relax.



Sorry I didn't see it.

[Bobert]

Its still there Jack Tripper.
Funny that you would complain about the mods when you whine to the JREF mods more then anyone and come from the LCF where thread disappearing is a minute by minute occurence.


Bobert, stop with the personal attacks. Attack the argument and not the person, and keep in mind that the CT forum is under a stricter interpretation of the membership agreement at this time. I will view any violations going forward from today (this post was done late last night) as a deliberate decision on your part to ignore this warning.

[Regnad Kcin]

I didn't start this thread.Who said you did? Not I.

So what about this statement do you disagree with?What makes you think the light pole was resting solely on the dashboard?

[Lyte Trip]

Who said you did? Not I.

What makes you think the light pole was resting solely on the dashboard?

Since of course that is the forward most fulcrum point possible before the hood there really isn't any other option unless you move the fulcrum even FURTHER towards the light end.

[Qubit]

I didn't start this thread.

So what about this statement do you disagree with?

Here is what happened:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/cabSide1.jpg
(courtesy: -Raven- @ LCF)

If you notice Llyods picture, he does not fully draw the light pole only the first couple of feet out of the window. Again you keep grasping at straws to support your impossible and unimaginable account.

EDIT: In fact if you take Lloyd's picture and flip is horizontally, you can see it more clearly.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r121/FourierXForm/lloydsillustration.jpg

[T.A.M.]

Lyte:

I dont want to break the rules by hotlinking...so

doubleyoudoubleyoudoubleyou.craftmarketcorner.co.u k/images/ESS-AV003-200x200.jpg

The link is the Egyptian God of Fertility.

TAM:)

[fezzic]

My question is what caused the roof to cave in on this auto. If the deer went through the window, what fell on top of the SUV to cave the roof down so?

TAM:)

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/accident_story/10-14-02.html

The deer jumped off an overpass (deer suicide :)) actually the writeup suggests that it was probably spooked by another car on the overpass and jumped off as this car passed underneath.

[Regnad Kcin]

Since of course that is the forward most fulcrum point possible before the hood there really isn't any other option unless you move the fulcrum even FURTHER towards the light end.

(Bolding mine.)
Really?

[Horatius]

I didn't start this thread.

So what about this statement do you disagree with?

The heavier end of a see-saw will always be on the ground unless the fulcrum is not in the center but CLOSER to the heavy end like this:



The part where you focus solely on the "weight", and ignore other possible torques applied to the lighter end to counteract the weight of the heavier end - such as would be produced by the pole being jammed tightly against the seats of the taxi. You'd essentially have the pole coupled to the entire weight of the car.

[Regnad Kcin]

Thank you, Horatius. Not that I expect Lyte to accept that, considering he didn't the last few times it was patiently explained to him.

[JamesB]

I have been following this argument for a good 6 months now, and I am still baffled at the logic. OK, let's assume for a minute that Lloyd England is a New World Order plant. How the hell did they manage to get him to drive by in rush hour traffic and have his cab perfectly located to be hit by a freaking lightpole? Or was every cabbie in DC bought off, and they just figured they would only need to use one of them?

[Lyte Trip]

The part where you focus solely on the "weight", and ignore other possible torques applied to the lighter end to counteract the weight of the heavier end - such as would be produced by the pole being jammed tightly against the seats of the taxi. You'd essentially have the pole coupled to the entire weight of the car.

First of all this isn't very plausible because a significant amount of the top of the pole would have to be lodged through the frame of the car behind the back seat in order for this to work.

I suppose it's hypothetically possible. But it's not possible in reality when you consider the facts.

The top of the pole was curved like this:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/DSC_0420.jpg

So pretty much the entire curve would have to be lodged in the car for your scenario to work.

But let's suggest for a moment that it was.

Did you even listen to Lloyd's account?

He says he personally REMOVED the pole with help from a silent stranger but that he FELL DOWN in the process of removing it because he didn't know the top end was curved.

He made no mention of it being difficult to remove because it was lodged in the car.

And here is Lloyd on the street with the pole removed already. But look at the roof line of the Pentagon:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/239a.jpg

It's still intact!

The roof collapsed at 9:57 so in less than 19 minutes after a major catastrophe of these proportions after he barely escaped death we're supposed to believe that Lloyd figured he'd better hurry up and try removing the pole himself!

Even if it wasn't a major world wide catastrophe would ANY ONE OF YOU attempt to remove a big long heavy light pole that was lodged in your car within minutes after a major accident?

Wouldn't you just wait for the police and let them deal with it?

I met Lloyd. He is a small rather frail old man. Even with help I can't imagine him removing that pole in ANY circumstances.

Plus imagine how hard it would be to remove a pole that was lodged in the frame of the car so much that the light top end supported the heavy long base end being suspended in mid-air over the hood!

AND the hood was never even scratched as he removed the pole and while he fell down doing it!


Will at least ONE of you put your critical thinking caps on for a moment and admit how absurd this all is?
:confused:

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte:

I dont want to break the rules by hotlinking...so

doubleyoudoubleyoudoubleyou.craftmarketcorner.co.u k/images/ESS-AV003-200x200.jpg

The link is the Egyptian God of Fertility.

TAM:)

Dude.

What are you doing?

Stop it please.

I thought you said you were putting me on ignore.

Keep your phallic fantasies to yourself.

[Bobert]

Is that Lloyd the poor man that you humilated and ridiculed to make a buck?

[Undesired Walrus]

So.. What is a lampost that spears a window supposed to do?

I'll repeat Lyte, have you told Mr England your findings? I'm sure he would love to know!

[Undesired Walrus]

Such a claim could only laughed at by the ignorant who prefer to obfuscate and ridicule the facts in an obvious attempt to avoid the truth.

Let me ask you this then. How many physics professors have you brought this damming evidence to. Do they agree with you?

[JamesB]

Let me ask you this then. How many physics professors have you brought this damming evidence to. Do they agree with you?

Physics professors, hell why doesn't he try asking a highway patrolman?

[Undesired Walrus]

Nevertheless there is obvious and serious damage to the exterior of the vehicle that hit the deer while the exterior of Lloyd's car remained in perfect condition without so much as a single scratch!


Except for being traumitised for the rest of his life... honestly, how do you sleep at night?

[Undesired Walrus]

I've just listened to your pre-interview... how dare you be like this to such a broken man? You are just hounding him, hounding him. Are you the police? I'm glad to say, I can tell lloyd things you are a complete tool.

[Horatius]

First of all this isn't very plausible because a significant amount of the top of the pole would have to be lodged through the frame of the car behind the back seat in order for this to work.

...
So pretty much the entire curve would have to be lodged in the car for your scenario to work.



These are purely assuptions on your part. Do a bit of math, to show why it has to be "lodged through the frame" to support the weight. You can do math, right?

Otherwise, I see no reason to think it has to be lodged as you suggest. Being pressed against the back of the seat should provide a significant torque all by itself.


...

Even if it wasn't a major world wide catastrophe would ANY ONE OF YOU attempt to remove a big long heavy light pole that was lodged in your car within minutes after a major accident?

Wouldn't you just wait for the police and let them deal with it?



Argument from lazyness. I saw a fellow do pretty much the same thing after an accident, because the pole was blocking the road, and he didn't want to hold up traffic. And this wasn't even on a highway, in rush hour, of a large city.




...
Will at least ONE of you put your critical thinking caps on for a moment and admit how absurd this all is?
:confused:



I'll do that when you apply the same rule to your "theories". Deal?

[Horatius]

Thank you, Horatius. Not that I expect Lyte to accept that, considering he didn't the last few times it was patiently explained to him.


Yeah, I know, it was just such a good straightline.....I need help :)

[Undesired Walrus]

But none of these arguments really matter.. the main question is, what the hell do you think happened instead of Lloyd's account Lyte? He stopped his car in the middle of the highway during rush hour, punched a hole in his window then chainsawed down a lampost?

And nobody noticed. nobody noticed. Over 10 people saw a plane smack off lamposts. That is what they noticed.

Isn't that a bit more "impossible" then a car not getting many scars?

[T.A.M.]

Dude.

What are you doing?

Stop it please.

I thought you said you were putting me on ignore.

Keep your phallic fantasies to yourself.

Lyte:

you said you didnt get the joke so I was pointing you to a picture (a harmless one) that makes the joke more clear to your tiny brain.

I am a 36 year old physician, so I am quite comfortable with not only my own heterosexuality, but others homosexuality...don't worry about me, I am fine. there are no fantasies...funny that everybody here but you got the reference I pointed out...

As for putting you on ignore...never...I am keeping a close eye on your shaite...waiting to hear from the authorities on your earth shattering/warrant provoking discovery.

I did miss counting yesterday, Day #9...Today is Day #10 Lyte.

TAM;)

[twinstead]

The only thing I can think of that's worse than what that poor man went through that day is 5 years after the fact some arrogant armchair 'investigator' accusing him of lying about it.

[Undesired Walrus]

The only thing I can think of that's worse than what that poor man went through that day is 5 years after the fact some arrogant armchair 'investigator' accusing him of lying about it.


You would have at least thought that if someone has a "smoking gun" that the conspiracy is revealed, they would at least find out what really happened to Lloyd, rather than claiming he was fooled, threatened or made up the entire incident. Or have the guts to say this to his face than abusing the welcome he extended to them by letting them into his home.

Lyte, how about the physical impossibility of a plane surviving a massive explosion just feet under it? Done any see-saw diagrams for that?

[Belz...]

The roof collapsed at 9:57 so in less than 19 minutes after a major catastrophe of these proportions after he barely escaped death we're supposed to believe that Lloyd figured he'd better hurry up and try removing the pole himself!

Even if it wasn't a major world wide catastrophe would ANY ONE OF YOU attempt to remove a big long heavy light pole that was lodged in your car within minutes after a major accident?

Wouldn't you just wait for the police and let them deal with it?

What I would do in those circumstances is irrelevant, really.

I met Lloyd. He is a small rather frail old man. Even with help I can't imagine him removing that pole in ANY circumstances.

I'm sorry about that.

AND the hood was never even scratched as he removed the pole and while he fell down doing it!

And ?

Will at least ONE of you put your critical thinking caps on for a moment and admit how absurd this all is?

Here you're assuming your conclusion with this question.

[Belz...]

You would have at least thought that if someone has a "smoking gun" that the conspiracy is revealed, they would at least find out what really happened to Lloyd, rather than claiming he was fooled, threatened or made up the entire incident.

Of course not. If Lyte did that, it'd be far harder for him to weasel out of his statements when pressed.

[Gamolon]

Has anyone from "our camp" interviewed\emailed\talked to any of the folks that Lyte is using as eyewitnesses?

[Disbelief]

First of all this isn't very plausible because a significant amount of the top of the pole would have to be lodged through the frame of the car behind the back seat in order for this to work.

I suppose it's hypothetically possible. But it's not possible in reality when you consider the facts.

So pretty much the entire curve would have to be lodged in the car for your scenario to work.


Uh, no. The end of the pole would most likely have been lodged under the rear bench seat. You would have part of the pole on the dash and the rest jammed up uner the back seat.


He says he personally REMOVED the pole with help from a silent stranger but that he FELL DOWN in the process of removing it because he didn't know the top end was curved.

He made no mention of it being difficult to remove because it was lodged in the car.


So, the stranger grabs it to relieve end on the far side and makes it easier to pull out? Did you ask him how they pulled it out?


And here is Lloyd on the street with the pole removed already. But look at the roof line of the Pentagon:


It's still intact!

The roof collapsed at 9:57 so in less than 19 minutes after a major catastrophe of these proportions after he barely escaped death we're supposed to believe that Lloyd figured he'd better hurry up and try removing the pole himself!

Even if it wasn't a major world wide catastrophe would ANY ONE OF YOU attempt to remove a big long heavy light pole that was lodged in your car within minutes after a major accident?

Wouldn't you just wait for the police and let them deal with it?


Maybe because he could see the Pentagon on fire and was scared. Maybe he wanted to just get the hell outof there.

[
Plus imagine how hard it would be to remove a pole that was lodged in the frame of the car so much that the light top end supported the heavy long base end being suspended in mid-air over the hood!

AND the hood was never even scratched as he removed the pole and while he fell down doing it!


Will at least ONE of you put your critical thinking caps on for a moment and admit how absurd this all is?
:confused:

I addressed how they might have gotten it out earlier. Where was LLoyd when he pulled the pole out? You want people here to comment on something you find absurd when your WHOLE theory is absurd?

[rwguinn]

The only thing I can think of that's worse than what that poor man went through that day is 5 years after the fact some arrogant armchair 'investigator' accusing him of lying about it.

And especially an armchair "investigator" who has never, ever seen a track meet--particularly the javelin event.
It is obvious that the events are rigged, because ther is no way that 6' long spear could go at an angle into the ground, with no other part touching the ground, and stay upright at an angle with only 3 inches of it actually in the ground holding it up...

[Lyte Trip]

So.. What is a lampost that spears a window supposed to do?


Damage the hood.


I'll repeat Lyte, have you told Mr England your findings? I'm sure he would love to know!

He is quite aware.

[Lyte Trip]

I've just listened to your pre-interview... how dare you be like this to such a broken man? You are just hounding him, hounding him. Are you the police? I'm glad to say, I can tell lloyd things you are a complete tool.

Since of course it was actually Russell Pickering asking the questions you can forward this personal attack to him.

Funny how he prides himself on not "grilling" witnesses and even made a specific comment about how he refused to do that in his original phone interview with Lloyd:


I do not "grill" people. I am interested in their subjective experience. I have a high degree of respect for people in general and am sharing this to show one person's view of this event. I don't record my interviews. I take good notes.
Of course his original unrecorded phone interview that he is talking about is what he used to spread the disinfo about Lloyd claiming it was the small top piece of the pole that smashed through his windshield.

Glad Lloyd was able to clear that up for us.

Now even Russell admits his account is impossible.

[Lyte Trip]

But none of these arguments really matter.. the main question is, what the hell do you think happened instead of Lloyd's account Lyte? He stopped his car in the middle of the highway during rush hour, punched a hole in his window then chainsawed down a lampost?

And nobody noticed. nobody noticed. Over 10 people saw a plane smack off lamposts. That is what they noticed.

Isn't that a bit more "impossible" then a car not getting many scars?

Since of course this has nothing to do with our hypothesis this is what you would call a strawman.

We do not suggest that Lloyd himself staged the damage.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte:

you said you didnt get the joke so I was pointing you to a picture (a harmless one) that makes the joke more clear to your tiny brain.

I am a 36 year old physician, so I am quite comfortable with not only my own heterosexuality, but others homosexuality...don't worry about me, I am fine. there are no fantasies...funny that everybody here but you got the reference I pointed out...



Joke?

Now it was a joke?

So are you saying that you don't really see any phallic imagery in that cartoon and that you were simply joking?

You're right I don't get it.

[Regnad Kcin]

Lyte:

Your argument from incredulity is noted. Funny how you don't apply the same disbelief to your far more outlandish ideas.

[Horatius]

Damage the hood.





...in your opinion.

[Horatius]

It is obvious that the events are rigged, because ther is no way that 6' long spear could go at an angle into the ground, with no other part touching the ground, and stay upright at an angle with only 3 inches of it actually in the ground holding it up...




Now, you're supposed to say, "My javelin analogy renders calculations moot."

[Undesired Walrus]

Damage the hood.



Proof.

That is all I asking for. Proof. So far you have provided none. Otherwise Lyte, your entire 'north' fallacy is 100% wrong, which, I'm afraid, it is.

[Lyte Trip]

The only thing I can think of that's worse than what that poor man went through that day is 5 years after the fact some arrogant armchair 'investigator' accusing him of lying about it.

We went there to find the facts.

We were not sitting in our chairs anonymously calling people names like you are.

Our research is based on facts brought back from the scene.

Everyone was guessing about Lloyd's story and we brought back the story as told by Lloyd himself and examined the same style light poles at the VDOT.

Funny how you consider that "armchair" investigating.
:rolleyes:

[Lyte Trip]

Now, you're supposed to say, "My javelin analogy renders calculations moot."

No it's simply irrelevant.

The light pole is nothing like a flexible javelin and the car is nothing like the permeable ground.

The arch with which a javelin is thrown would be NOTHING like the force with which the pole would have been hit by a 757.

Ridiculous.

[Undesired Walrus]

Since of course this has nothing to do with our hypothesis this is what you would call a strawman.

We do not suggest that Lloyd himself staged the damage.

Oh! So now you just admit he was lying?

Either you

A: Come up with a plausible, humanly possible way for Lloyd England's taxi cab to be damaged, without use of a pole, in the middle of the highway, with nobody noticing,

or

B: You drop all of this and admit you are just plainly wrong.

Which one would serve you better in the long run?

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte:

Your argument from incredulity is noted. Funny how you don't apply the same disbelief to your far more outlandish ideas.

My argument is based on facts brought back from the scene.

First hand testimony from Lloyd himself and the actual measurements of the pole from the VDOT.

Not to mention the fact that we have PROVEN that Lloyd's scene was staged with the nonindependent accounts of the citgo witnesses.

Watch Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios one more time and then watch Lloyd.

Can you honestly say you believe Lloyd's story over ALL 3 of them?

I'm sorry but if you do your critical thinking skills are in serious question.

[Undesired Walrus]

The arch with which a javelin is thrown would be NOTHING like the force with which the pole would have been hit by a 757.

Ridiculous.

Ridiculous?

So what is the force of the pole when it is hit by a 757?

What is the strength and speed of a pole deflecting off the wing of a 757? Have you done this research? If you have, I would be happy to look at it.

[Lyte Trip]

Oh! So now you just admit he was lying?

Either you

A: Come up with a plausible, humanly possible way for Lloyd England's taxi cab to be damaged, without use of a pole, in the middle of the highway, with nobody noticing,

or

B: You drop all of this and admit you are just plainly wrong.

Which one would serve you better in the long run?

Watch the movie bro.

It's all in there.

[twinstead]

Perhaps we can throw your logic back at you, Lyte. You seem to think that since in your opinion it was impossible for the plane to have flown per the official story, all evidence--even if it seems overwhelming--that supports the official story is either a mistake or nefariously planted.

Therefore, you feel you can safely totally ignore any of the contrary evidence.

Well, I think the physical evidence, first responder accounts, and eye witness testimony of the plane crash is overwhelmingly in favor of the official story. Therefore, even if it seems unlikely to you that Lloyd's account is true, it has to be because it fits the rest of the evidence. That pole was able to crash into his windshield exactly like he describes, and he was able to extract it without scratching his hood.

The small number of eye-witness accounts that are contrary to the official story are simply anomalies that exist in any event of this type.

Therefore I can safely totally ignore pretty much every bit of 'evidence' you present.

See. Isn't that fun?

[Undesired Walrus]

Can you honestly say you believe Lloyd's story over ALL 3 of them?


Because he is an old black, working class taxi driver? Disgusting..

[Undesired Walrus]

Watch the movie bro.
It's all in there.

Complete lie.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Not to mention the fact that we have PROVEN that Lloyd's scene was staged with the nonindependent accounts of the citgo witnesses.Comedy gold.

Time to give it up, friend. I know you won't, however, which only compounds the sorry state you're in.

[twinstead]

It's not a matter of believing Lloyd's story over your witnesses Lyte, it's a matter of believing Lloyd's story because it, unlike your witnesses' stories, fit in with the majority of evidence.

If any accounts should be scrutinized the most it's theirs.

[rwguinn]

Now, you're supposed to say, "My javelin analogy renders calculations moot."
Da%n!
I keep forgetting and applying logic.
IS thatwhy the NWO took me off of field ops? I

[thinkingaboutit]

Why are you people wasting your time with this guy? He's been refuted. Move on and stop giving him attention.

[Lyte Trip]

Let's put this in perspective shall we?

We have 3 witnesses all placing the plane on the North side of the Citgo. We have 1 directly illustrating that it was headed to the North side of the Citgo.

We have Lloyd England allegedly driving 50-55 mph, 40 mph in our interview, in the center lane according to Lloyd.

As he nears pole 1, it is allegedly struck by a 44,000 lb wing assembly of a 757 allegedly traveling 530 mph.

Allegedly pole 1 is severed and the 30 ft base is speared into his cab, at an obvious angle, which it then straightens to allow it to make it's way into his backseat on only the passenger side.

LLOYD ENGLAND, WHO WAS DRIVING IN THE CENTER LANE, SPINS SIDEWAYS WITH A POLE IN HIS WINDSHIELD AND ENDS UP SIDEWAYS IN THE SAME LANE.

Questions:

1. Are the chances GREATER that the pole would cause damage to his hood? Or is it LESS likely that the pole would cause damage to his hood in such an event?

2. He allegedly spun out sideways with a pole in his windshield and allegedly he removed it with the help of a silent stranger.

Are the chances greater that his hood would be damaged while spinning out with the pole in his windshield in the air as he drew? Or are the odds greater that his hood would remain untouched with a pole in the air as he spins out sideways.

Would it be more likely that they would remove this very heavy pole toward the direction of the shoulder, which is the direction they were pulling out towards?

Or would they remove it, walk around the car place it an angle across the center lane, for it to later be moved leaving a scratch in the asphalt?

Which is more likely?

[Disbelief]

stuff?

Why are YOU even bothering these questions? What is more likely:

1. The government staged some hideously complex conspiracy and a plane did not hit the Pentagon, but flew over?

or

2. A 757 AA jumbo jet struck the Pentagon?

You argue from incredulity on certain topics, but don't understand why others question your theories, accounts and motives.

[Lyte Trip]

Why are you people wasting your time with this guy? He's been refuted. Move on and stop giving him attention.

Yes why would they bother with little ol' me?

Obviously the gov't has been so forthcoming with evidence to prove the impact.

Look at all the videos we recieved and how long it took to get them.

The damage is clearly anomolous, even being called "counter-intuitive" by official story proponents.

95% of pilots and A & P mechanics who are members, not posters, at PFT do not believe a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Victims like April Gallop and others either don't believe the impact or have major questions.

4 witnesses place the plane drastically off course from the official damage path.

Multiple witnesses do not describe an AA, majority stating it was white.

We have "witnesses" who place "some sort of plane" or jet over the Pentagon and veering away, peeling off at the time of the explosion.

The C-130 pilot's account is now proven to be impossible to EXTREMELY problematic due to the release of the NTSB's flight path study.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Lyte Trip]

Why are YOU even bothering these questions? What is more likely:

1. The government staged some hideously complex conspiracy and a plane did not hit the Pentagon, but flew over?

or

2. A 757 AA jumbo jet struck the Pentagon?

You argue from incredulity on certain topics, but don't understand why others question your theories, accounts and motives.

If it looked like a 757 hit the pentagon, would we be here even discussing the matter?

It is not that complex, you are just caught up in the 'Big Lie' technique they used on you. The lie is so big, you can't believe it is a lie.

But Lagasse and Brooks know now. Are you not concerned about how they feel or what the implications are now that they know what the official story states?

[JimBenArm]

If it looked like a 757 hit the pentagon, would we be here even discussing the matter?

It is not that complex, you are just caught up in the 'Big Lie' technique they used on you. The lie is so big, you can't believe it is a lie.

But Lagasse and Brooks know now. Are you not concerned about how they feel or what the implications are now that they know what the official story states?
No, the only reason is that you are incapable of recognizing that you are the most incompetent investigator in the history of investigations! A big, freaking plane hit the Pentagon, and you can't figure that fact out.
Amazingly, breathtakingly incompetent!

[thinkingaboutit]

Yes why would they bother with little ol' me?

Obviously the gov't has been so forthcoming with evidence to prove the impact.

Look at all the videos we recieved and how long it took to get them.

The damage is clearly anomolous, even being called "counter-intuitive" by official story proponents.

95% of pilots and A & P mechanics who are members, not posters, at PFT do not believe a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Victims like April Gallop and others either don't believe the impact or have major questions.

4 witnesses place the plane drastically off course from the official damage path.

Multiple witnesses do not describe an AA, majority stating it was white.

We have "witnesses" who place "some sort of plane" or jet over the Pentagon and veering away, peeling off at the time of the explosion.

The C-130 pilot's account is now proven to be impossible to EXTREMELY problematic due to the release of the NTSB's flight path study.

Nothing to see here, move along.

No offense my friend but it's more of a 'why would you bother trying to reason with the ranting insane man who hangs out on the corner' kind of question, in my mind.

[Disbelief]

If it looked like a 757 hit the pentagon, would we be here even discussing the matter?

It is not that complex, you are just caught up in the 'Big Lie' technique they used on you. The lie is so big, you can't believe it is a lie.

But Lagasse and Brooks know now. Are you not concerned about how they feel or what the implications are now that they know what the official story states?


What is a 757 hit on the Pentagon supposed to look like? Why do you think you are the expert on what it is supposed to look like?

It is extremely complex to pull off what you are saying happened. You have to fool thousands of people or get others to outright lie for you. Remember, you are saying this of a large number of military people who swear to protect the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

No, I could do not care what two witnesses feel about the official story when you compare it to the hundreds or thousands that support it. Do you not care what these witnesses think? Do you not care what your crappy theory does to people who were there?

[Lyte Trip]

No offense my friend but it's more of a 'why would you bother trying to reason with the ranting insane man who hangs out on the corner' kind of question, in my mind.

Obviously, you don't live up to your name.

When you decide to, "debunk" the above points I made.

Good luck with that.

[HyJinX]

NWO Cat...

[Lyte Trip]

It is extremely complex to pull off what you are saying happened.


So all 4 were all mistaken simultaneously?

Lying simultaneously?

Not remembering correctly simultaneously?

Please state your answer on this.

It is not complex. It has been explained how this could be done.

Are you certain everyone would have been focused on a cab while there was a flaming hole in the side of the pentagon and potential other plane coming to hit them?

Are you certain everyone would have been focused on 4 poles laid out in the sloped down grassy lawn as they drove down the highway listening to reports of the attacks in NY, scanning the sky for planes?

Are you certain someone would have seen a pole and/or some debris dropped from a truck? Are you certain it wasn't already on the shoulder and then moved the resting spot?

Are you certain that a team of 5 people could not accomplish this?

[Disbelief]

So all 4 were all mistaken simultaneously?

Lying simultaneously?

Not remembering correctly simultaneously?

Please state your answer on this.

It is not complex. It has been explained how this could be done.


Note, I will answer all you bring up and not cherry pick the way you did with me. Why did you fail to answer the rest of my questions? Why did you never answer any questions I raised about C-130s?

Anyway, you forgot an option. All were led by the interviewer. I do not know how much you talked to them ahead of time. I do not know what when on off camera. You could very easily have led them to respond how you wanted 5 years after the fact.


Are you certain everyone would have been focused on a cab while there was a flaming hole in the side of the pentagon and potential other plane coming to hit them?


I am certain that almost no one would have ben focused on the cab. But, I am also certain that someone behind the cab who would be looking at the Pentagon would see people running up to damage the cab a deposit the lightpole for evidence. They would be directly in their line of sight carrying a lightpole.


Are you certain everyone would have been focused on 4 poles laid out in the sloped down grassy lawn as they drove down the highway listening to reports of the attacks in NY, scanning the sky for planes?


See above.


Are you certain someone would have seen a pole and/or some debris dropped from a truck? Are you certain it wasn't already on the shoulder and then moved the resting spot?


See above


Are you certain that a team of 5 people could not accomplish this?

A team of 5 people could probably accomplish this, but you are missing the point. They could not accomplish it without being seen.

Now, go back and answer all of my questions.

[stateofgrace]

Lyte read again everything you have written on this forum. Seriously go right back to the beginning and read it all. After you have done so, ask yourself, do I really believe all that stuff?

I have simply watching and not even bothered addressing you, other brave souls have, but it is pointless.

You know what Lyte, believe what you want, believe if you wish that somebody like yourself came up with the most insane plan in the history of insane plans. Believe that everybody was fooled totally, everybody is lying, all the evidence was faked, the data on the black boxes was faked, the lamp posts were staged, the passengers DNA was place or faked,the explosion was staged, Flight 77 flew off into the sunset and not a single person saw it depart, believe it landed in some mysterious location to be met by mysterious MIB, believe what you want friend.

Nobody else does, and those that do well I really couldn’t care less, because you and you completely insane theory are going no where. Nobody will ever take you seriously; nobody will ever take your evidence and present it in a court. Nobody will ever get sent down through it, nobody will pay you the slightest bit of attention other than those people who have tried time and time again to show how completely insane your theory is.

Seriously, get a grip of yourself, grow up and show some respect for this dreadful event. It is not yours to play with; it is not yours to play at the great investigator with. People DIED, this is not a game. Show some respect and stop.

[Rika]

So all 4 were all mistaken simultaneously? Possible.

Lying simultaneously? Not necessarily. If they are mistaken, then the answer is no. It could be that they're just mistake or not remembering.

Not remembering correctly simultaneously? Possible. As has been mentioned before, eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially with the more time from the event.

Oh, I do love how you ignore the other witnesses, the ones that saw it impact on the south side, the people who helped clean the wreckage up.. all of them. And before you go "Trees blocked the impact point..." People quite probably would have seen a plane flyover the Pentagon, assuming, of course, that it could survive the g-forces needed to do such a maneuver...

Please state your answer on this.

It is not complex. It has been explained how this could be done.

Are you certain everyone would have been focused on a cab while there was a flaming hole in the side of the pentagon and potential other plane coming to hit them? No.. but this is a strawman, no one ever claimed this. However, I imagine that people would help others out - tragedies tend to do that. And many people went to the lawn, as some of the links Gravy posted show. Maybe you should reread them? Oh, right, your 4 are conveniently beyond dismissal because you KNOW they're right - but everyone else doesn't get that luck.

Are you certain everyone would have been focused on 4 poles laid out in the sloped down grassy lawn as they drove down the highway listening to reports of the attacks in NY, scanning the sky for planes? .... Why would they have been focused on this? Are you claiming that this means they'd see the plane impact, and not the fact that planes flying at -very- low attitude tend to attract attention?

Are you certain someone would have seen a pole and/or some debris dropped from a truck? Are you certain it wasn't already on the shoulder and then moved the resting spot? Certain is a misleading word - but the evidence says, yes, you tend to notice things like that on a road - and if had been on the shoulder? People would have mentioned it. That's unusual.. well, I'd -expect- downed lightpoles are unusual. Maybe not

Are you certain that a team of 5 people could not accomplish this? ...... Well, there were 2 hijackers on the Pentagon flight, 2 on the .. yea, I suppose it's possible 5 people can impact a 757 into the Pentagon

[HyJinX]

You're all wasting your time. Lyte will never come around...it would be bad for business. So while you chew on that here's this...Cat and Toast!

[Disbelief]

You're all wasting your time. Lyte will never come around...it would be bad for business. So while you chew on that here's this...Cat and Toast!

I know, but I can't let it lie. He trots out April Gallop as his star witness, trying to make us feel sorry for her and trying to say taht if anyone says anything bad about her that are attacking a victim. He, however, has no trouble verbally attacking an old man and disparaging people in the military, the very people who defend his right to put out the garbage he does. He has no clue what it means to be in the military and just how far out of whack his assessment is.

Now, are you going to answer my questions Lyte since I answered yours?

[Undesired Walrus]

So all 4 were all mistaken simultaneously?


And the large majority who can point to it being on the other side are mistaken about their approach?

Face it Lyte, you want a conspiracy to believe, so you will ignore vast contradicting evidence. Just fobbing them off as "shills" aint going to work.

Guys, how many people have to be lying here?

[aggle-rithm]

Even if it wasn't a major world wide catastrophe would ANY ONE OF YOU attempt to remove a big long heavy light pole that was lodged in your car within minutes after a major accident?

Wouldn't you just wait for the police and let them deal with it?


Thanks, LT. That post made my day! :)

"Where are the police? I don't care if the Pentagon IS on fire right behind me! I pay TAXES, dangit!"

[Lyte Trip]

Why did you never answer any questions I raised about C-130s?

Which? Because I thought I did.

Anyway, you forgot an option. All were led by the interviewer. I do not know how much you talked to them ahead of time. I do not know what when on off camera. You could very easily have led them to respond how you wanted 5 years after the fact.

So now you are accusing me of leading ALL 4 witnesses? So you are suggesting they all saw it on the South side of the Citgo, and I convinced them otherwise, by leading them. Ok THAT is what you call a conspiracy theory. Are you saying they all didn't see the plane, and I help them manufacture these accounts by leading them? Or are you saying they ALL saw the plane on the official path, and I lead them to say it was somewhere else? Please do elaborate.

I already told you Lagasse placed the plane on the North side in 2003. That is partly what brought us there in the first place. he confirmed it, and 3 other witnesses supported his account. PERIOD. 5 yrs has no bearing on the plane being on the North side of the Citgo. That is simply you guys reaching.



I am certain that almost no one would have ben focused on the cab.

Ok good, glad we got that established.

But, I am also certain that someone behind the cab who would be looking at the Pentagon would see people running up to damage the cab a deposit the lightpole for evidence. They would be directly in their line of sight carrying a lightpole.

How do you know they did it on the highway? What if it was done under the overpass/bridge he ended up on? All we're talking about is a smashed windshield, pulling a cab up onto the highway, and a pole/debris being dropped on the highway by a truck, pre or post plane arrival/explosion.


A team of 5 people could probably accomplish this,

Thank you for admitting this.

but you are missing the point. They could not accomplish it without being seen.

You simply don't know that. Again, most people were concerned about two things. Staring at the action going on at the Pentagon and another plane arriving. What if the pole and debris were already on the shoulder and were simply moved into position.

What we do know is the plane was not near the pole that was allegedly struck. So we are forced to speculate as to how they ended up there.

[twinstead]

What we do know is the plane was not near the pole that was allegedly struck. So we are forced to speculate as to how they ended up there.

You know nothing of the sort, you simply declare it as fact when your evidence is suspect, and is contrary to the majority of physical evidence.

Nor do you have any evidence the evidence was planted. All you have is conjecture. You don't have the right to say you have proved anything.

Until you do, everything you say subsequently is suspect.

[Lyte Trip]

You know nothing of the sort, you simply declare it as fact when your evidence is suspect, and is contrary to the majority of physical evidence.

Nor do you have any evidence the evidence was planted. All you have is conjecture. You don't have the right to say you have proved anything.

Until you do, everything you say subsequently is suspect.

Well fortunately for us, the *opinion* of an anonymous poster at Jref does not speak for the rest of the world.

[Lyte Trip]

You're all wasting your time. Lyte will never come around...it would be bad for business. So while you chew on that here's this...Cat and Toast!

HyJinx,

Can you do one of the cat flying over the pentagon? That would be great.

[Lyte Trip]

And the large majority who can point to it being on the other side are mistaken about their approach?

Please list this "large majority". I would love to see it.

Face it Lyte, you want a conspiracy to believe, so you will ignore vast contradicting evidence. Just fobbing them off as "shills" aint going to work.

Appparently, you've missed all the times I've proven that we've done our homework on this.

Guys, how many people have to be lying here?

Not many.

[Lyte Trip]

Oh, I do love how you ignore the other witnesses, the ones that saw it impact on the south side,


Please list them. Clearly you think you know what you are talking about. So list them.

[Disbelief]

Which? Because I thought I did.



Nope, you simply bypassed them in another thread. Don't worry, you have proven to me you know little to nothing about them.


So now you are accusing me of leading ALL 4 witnesses? So you are suggesting they all saw it on the South side of the Citgo, and I convinced them otherwise, by leading them. Ok THAT is what you call a conspiracy theory. Are you saying they all didn't see the plane, and I help them manufacture these accounts by leading them? Or are you saying they ALL saw the plane on the official path, and I lead them to say it was somewhere else? Please do elaborate.


Like I said, I have no idea but you give three options like these are the only possibilities. I have no idea if any of these people talked to each other. I have no idea how much coverage they have seen or how much they have been inundated with investigators. Are you saying it is impossible to lead people?


I already told you Lagasse placed the plane on the North side in 2003. That is partly what brought us there in the first place. he confirmed it, and 3 other witnesses supported his account. PERIOD. 5 yrs has no bearing on the plane being on the North side of the Citgo. That is simply you guys reaching.


Can you really type that with a straight face. It has been proven, time and again, that eyewitness testimony is not the most accurate and time degrades the memory. You have been linked to multiple studies that support this, but you refuse to believe that it could happen to your witnesses. Of course, the other witnesses who do not support you are completely wrong, though there are more of them.


Ok good, glad we got that established.


Out of context. Link it with the rest of my statement instead of separating them.


How do you know they did it on the highway? What if it was done under the overpass/bridge he ended up on? All we're talking about is a smashed windshield, pulling a cab up onto the highway, and a pole/debris being dropped on the highway by a truck, pre or post plane arrival/explosion.


And Lloyd, who you are now completely calling a liar. It still does not address the fact that someone would have been looking that way to see the Pentagon and seen the truck drop a lightpole. Right?


Thank you for admitting this.


Once again, out of context. Please use my entire quote.


but you are missing the point. They could not accomplish it without being seen.


You simply don't know that. Again, most people were concerned about two things. Staring at the action going on at the Pentagon and another plane arriving. What if the pole and debris were already on the shoulder and were simply moved into position.

What we do know is the plane was not near the pole that was allegedly struck. So we are forced to speculate as to how they ended up there.

So, I speculate on people being seen carrying lightpoles around, whether by hand or truck, and I can't know that. Yet you have the gall to speculate on a flyover, a remote controlled 757, bombs in the Pentagon and other nonsense and you are not critical of your own thought process?

The plane was near enough to the poles to hit them. The evidence, is because it happened.

ETA: Lyte, there were a number of questions I had in post #77, but you skipped them. Will you answer them yet?

[Regnad Kcin]

95% of pilots and A & P mechanics who are members, not posters, at PFT do not believe a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.And how many would that 95% be, exactly?

Well fortunately for us, the *opinion* of an anonymous poster at Jref does not speak for the rest of the world.And how many of that 95% are not anonymous, exactly?

[Lyte Trip]

Nope, you simply bypassed them in another thread. Don't worry, you have proven to me you know little to nothing about them.

Ah, another vague declaration to help support your case and insinuate i "know little to nothing ".



Like I said, I have no idea

No. You seem to have a pretty good idea. So please do elaborate. You bypassed the other options in favor of your own. So which is it?

but you give three options like these are the only possibilities.

Well they are.


I have no idea if any of these people talked to each other. I have no idea how much coverage they have seen or how much they have been inundated with investigators.


Key words: "I have no idea"

That's the point, you have no idea. You are simply relegate to theorizing about something you admitted having no idea about. Why don't you call them all and clear it up?

Are you saying it is impossible to lead people?

Four different people about a simple right or left claim? Yes I am saying that is impossible. Especially because it didn't happen. But your accusations towards myself and the witnesses are noted.




Can you really type that with a straight face. It has been proven, time and again, that eyewitness testimony is not the most accurate and time degrades the memory. You have been linked to multiple studies that support this, but you refuse to believe that it could happen to your witnesses.

Can you actually type that with a straight face? We've been over this Disb. So which is it? Did I lead them? Or was there no accuracy due to "time degrades on memory"? All four were lead and there was no accuracy due to time degards on memory. Gotcha-you know you contradicted yourself, right? Seems like you are throwing anything up and hoping it sticks.

Of course, the other witnesses who do not support you are completely wrong, though there are more of them.

What other witnesses that "do not support" me? Please specify.




And Lloyd, who you are now completely calling a liar. It still does not address the fact that someone would have been looking that way to see the Pentagon and seen the truck drop a lightpole. Right?

Well whatever, you are forced to believe 4 witnesses to the plane or Lloyd's absurd, detail changing story, that we've been questioning since day one. Are you a pilot? Do you think a pilot would be comfortable with testing 5 break away poles in 757 going 500+ mph? Do you think he would have confidence in the wings not being damaged enough to impede a successful flight away from the poles after?


So, I speculate on people being seen carrying lightpoles around, whether by hand or truck, and I can't know that. Yet you have the gall to speculate on a flyover, a remote controlled 757, bombs in the Pentagon and other nonsense and you are not critical of your own thought process?


Um, the evidence is there. We've been questioning it since day one. We have the proof now. You can speculate all you want.

I have 4 people who witnessed the plane drastically off the damage flight path.

So where are your witnesses who saw the pole spear that cab's windshield?

Where are your witnesses who saw the plane on the South side of the Citgo?

Where are the witnesses YOU spoke with?

The plane was near enough to the poles to hit them. The evidence, is because it happened.

haha. ok, whatever you say. Because obviously, it IS whatever you say.

ETA: Lyte, there were a number of questions I had in post #77, but you skipped them. Will you answer them yet?

That's when I know I am winning a debate, when i am accused on evading questions. Is that your way of making it look like I am drowning in this debate?

Did it ever occur to you I may have answered them elsewhere? I may have missed them? I was busy with the 20 other posters and their questions?

[HyJinX]

HyJinx,

Can you do one of the cat flying over the pentagon? That would be great.

Just for you...because you're so darn entertaining.

[Rika]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Witnesses

So, Steve Riskus, Mary Lyman, Mary Ann Owens, Daryl Donley, Mike Walter, Terrence Kean, Dave Winslow, Cmdr. Mike Dobbs,


Passengers aboard a Washington Metro train heading to Ronald Reagan National Airport also saw the crash and explosion, including Allen Cleveland who explained [he] "looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon."

and

other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike, as well as people in nearby locations such as Pentagon City, Crystal City also witnessed the crash.



These witnesses, Lyle.

[apathoid]

Please list them. Clearly you think you know what you are talking about. So list them.

Not that you'll understand the point I'm about to make, but here it is: The Citgo station is a completely arbitrary point of reference, as such you cannot expect peoples eyewitness accounts to refer to it, much less expect them point out which side of it the plane flew on. Do you understand this?

Further, based on what I've seen of you and Aldo, I have my suspicions that you a) led the witnesses before taking their statements(which is why you quite tellingly rejected the idea of releasing the raw interview footage), and/or b) interviewed people who indeed saw it to the south, but since these wouldn't exactly bolster your claims, these accounts didn't make into the SG video. Will they make onto the Researchers Edition? I doubt it.

Speaking of the Researchers Edition, when can we expect to see it up at Youtube and Google Video? Before the end of the year? What the heck is taking so long?

[Lyte Trip]

And how many would that 95% be, exactly?

I would estimate that number to be around 20-30 members.

And how many of that 95% are not anonymous, exactly?

None.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip
So all 4 were all mistaken simultaneously?

Lying simultaneously?

Not remembering correctly simultaneously?

Please state your answer on this.

It is not complex. It has been explained how this could be done.


First of all you seem to have no problem stating that anyone else who has the plane on the 'official' flight path (refering to south or north of the Citgo is, as has been pointed out, rather silly and arbitrary) as either mistaken or lying, simultaneously.

Second, your flight path differs significantly from that described by your **star** witness, Robert. He has the plane practically over head at the Citgo. Was he mistaken or lying?

Lastly, not complex???
Shall we review..............
You have:
a) a several teams that must topple the lamp posts as the plane flies over head. These teams had not been briefed that if the plane did not go over their heads they were to abort the lamp post toppling, or the lamp posts are done along a different flight path as part of a campaign to create an illusion that a plane that did not fly along your flight path.
b) other teams to distribute small aircraft parts in front of the Pentagon
c) the surreptitious planting of explosives at the base of the Pentagon and inside the Pentagon that would blow the wall inward, create a fireball that rockets skyward and simulate the damage to the interior of the Pentagon that a speeding 757 would do (a wedge shaped zone of destruction as opposed to a spherical one)
d) the planting of human remains and aircraft parts within the Pentagon
e) an actual aircraft, flown by remote control, that roars in along your flight path headed for the Pentagon.
f) the explosion occurs before the plane reachs the Pentagon and thus Robert,(and all others, every single last one of them) who believes that the plane did hit the Pentagon, confusingly has the plane entering this fireball thus obscuring the plane from his sight until it does hit the Pentagon.
g) this fireball hides the fact that the plane flies over the Pentagon and somehow convinces everyone, every single last person who saw it hit, that the plane hits the ground floor. this fireball is so distracting that many also describe the plane's wing scraping the ground as it hit when in fact the plane was at that time roaring over the roof behind the fireball.
gg) all the witnesses who state that the plane hit the ground floor, or that it flew along the 'official' flight path are either mistaken, fooled by the fireball and downed lamp posts, or they are lying and probably part of the complex scheme.
h) the plane pulls up fast enough and banks out of the area fast enough that no one on any side other than the impact side of the Pentagon, who's attention would be drawn to the huge orange fireball, would notice this large jet travelling at no more than about 80 feet agl as it passed through and behind the fireball.
i) the actual flight 77 and all of its souls on board were then caused to disappear or the flight and all those people were faked. Fake life histories, fake families, faked phone calls, no such flight.

Nah, not complex and certainly obvious that it would fool almost everyone as to the flight path inbound and absolutly everyone on its outbound flight path. Also obvious is that this scheme would be much more desireable than to simply have a real , remotely commandeered American Airlines aircraft crash into the Pentagon.

[Yaters]

Lyte-

Some day, you'll realize that Disbelief has a good point.

"The evidence is there" for you because you want to see it. You claim it's an ongoing investigation, but in the same breath, you claim to have "proven" your theory. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

Nothing of what you've done would be admissable in a court of law. Someone here once took you to task for calling it "testimony" and you claimed it was a case of semantics. Really? So, when this "evidence" and "testimony" is presented and deemed inadmissable in a court of law, are you(or more likely your lawyer) going to object on the grounds of "semantics"?

And if you claim semantics, to me that means you aren't serious about moving forward with some type of prosecution.

So, what are we left with then? Why did you go through all this work if you clearly don't care if your gathered "evidence" counts where it needs to, in court?

Honestly, Lyte, I commend you for doing your homework, but you know what? I can't even count how many times in High School I did my homework and still failed the test(before you latch onto that and try to claim I'm uneducated, I graduated college and hold down a decent job).

[T.A.M.]

Joke?

Now it was a joke?

So are you saying that you don't really see any phallic imagery in that cartoon and that you were simply joking?

You're right I don't get it.

It was one of those things where you see something that is funny, in a picture, and you mention it to someone..."heh, isnt that funny."

It was never intended to imply anything about you, it was merely a comment on the picture you put up there. For all I know the artist may have intentionally drawn it that way, or not. If you didn't see the phallic imagery, and/or didnt find it funny...sorry, but I did, and just figured I'd mention it in passing.

Lyte, literally, in this matter, LYTEN UP!!

TAM:)

[Regnad Kcin]

95% of pilots and A & P mechanics who are members, not posters, at PFT do not believe a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.And how many would that 95% be, exactly?I would estimate that number to be around 20-30 members.So, let's say 25.

How many of those 25 pilots and A & P mechanics are qualified to survey an accident scene to the point where they can determine whether or not an airplane of the stated size, traveling at the estimated speed, crashed? Exactly.

[Regnad Kcin]

And by the way, enough already about the "north of the Citgo" blathering. It was shown to you in the other thread that the flight path, once past the gas station, was indeed north of it before hitting the Pentagon. Your witnesses do not therefore dispute the official, true, flight path.

Of course you won't stop, will you? Confirmation bias coupled with personal incredulity can take powerful hold of a person.

[Lyte Trip]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Witnesses

So, Steve Riskus, Mary Lyman, Mary Ann Owens, Daryl Donley, Mike Walter, Terrence Kean, Dave Winslow, Cmdr. Mike Dobbs,

None of those witnesses specify which side of the station the plane flew on. Mike Walter will not even cop to seeing the poles getting hit.

Mary Ann Owens is the closest. She specifies the "overpass", but it was written a year after. So we don't know if she went back and saw the photos and added that. Do you? Did you speak with her? We couldn't find her. She is also part of the the very suspicious USA Today Parade of 7-8 USA Today reporters/editors on that .16 mile stretch that allegedly saw the plane. The only picture she produced, when she just happened to buy a disposable camera from some other lady on the highway is shot from the Gannett/USA Today towers, the EXACT same shot as shown in the live news feeds. Even though she claimed she took photos on the highway, none have ever been produced.


Allen Cleveland, Meseidy Rodriguez, and Susan Carrollton did not see the plane impact. I doubt highly that they saw the plane at all according to the NTSB flight path.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/dcagaragemetrol.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/clevelandrodriguez.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/dcagaragemetrol.jpghttp://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/clevelandrodriguez.jpg

[apathoid]

None of those witnesses specify which side of the station the plane flew on.



Why would they? Please see my post above.

[jaydeehess]

Now, about Lloyd's account and the 'impossibility' that it is correct.

Is it possible that Robert managed to get from where he says he was when he first heard the plane to where he was when he saw the fireball in the time he says that it took for the plane to get to the Pentagon?

Is it possible for the plane to have travelled along the path that Robert states it did?

Is it possible that Robert would assume the fireball occured well before the impact and thus would be obscuring his view of the plane from that moment until it impacted the Pentagon?

My answers would be , maybe, no and no.

Given that Robert's statements, as you explain them, are unlikely and/or impossible will you now disavow his statements as having any meaning.
If it was just the confusion of the adrenaline producing moment then why is that an excuse for Robert who was in no danger throughout his witnessing the aircraft, and not an excuse for Lloyd who came very close to being killed.

If the rapidity of the event and the adrenaline produced by such an event an excuse for Rpbert not getting all the details correct then why is it so unusual for Lloyd to not have seen the plane impact the Pentagon when he was at the time wrestling with his car and unable to see clearly out the front window?

[Lyte Trip]

So, let's say 25.

How many of those 25 pilots and A & P mechanics are qualified to survey an accident scene to the point where they can determine whether or not an airplane of the stated size, traveling at the estimated speed, crashed? Exactly.

How many in the ASCE were qualified crash scene investigators?

How many in the FBI were qualified crash scene investigators?

Exactly?

2 that I know I of by the way. To answer your question.

So regnad?

Did you have any answers on the plane "witnesses" saw flying away? Did you have any answers on the C-130's problematic interaction with this alleged AA 757?

[Lyte Trip]

Why would they? Please see my post above.


Right, then how in the world are they witnesses that contradict the North side witnesses? Or support the South side?

[twinstead]

So, Lyte, all the other witnesses are lying or mistaken. In fact, you imply that Mary Ann Owens is in on it, for God's sake! You are a disgrace.

Only your witnesses are 100% right about what they saw, I see.

And, oddly, you don't even subject your witnesses to even close to the same scrutiny that you do the others, even though in a REAL investigation those rogues witnesses would be the ones with the magnifying glass to every single word uttered.

[jaydeehess]

None of those witnesses specify which side of the station the plane flew on.

OHMIFREAKINLORD!


Anti-Sophist,
The Citgo is supposedly the most well known and grandiose structure in the area. So much so that it would be highly unusual for people describing the loaction of other structures nearby not to use the Citgo as a reference and highly unusual for them not to use it as a reference point when describing the path that the aircraft took through the area.

One need only look for directions to National Airport and see that they all use the Citgo station as a reference point for all pilots. directions to the Pentagon are also given using the Citgo as THE reference standard for the area.

[Belz...]

My argument is based on facts brought back from the scene.

No. It's based on REPORTS brought back from the scene, years later. Not the same thing.

[jaydeehess]

Right, then how in the world are they witnesses that contradict the North side witnesses? Or support the South side?

They say it flew INTO the Pentagon Lyte. They have a good view from higher up and thus a better view of the upper levels including the roof Lyte. None of them has the plane continuing over the roof Lyte.

[Lyte Trip]

And by the way, enough already about the "north of the Citgo" blathering. It was shown to you in the other thread that the flight path, once past the gas station, was indeed north of it before hitting the Pentagon. Your witnesses do not therefore dispute the official, true, flight path.

Of course you won't stop, will you? Confirmation bias coupled with personal incredulity can take powerful hold of a person.

Reg, there is no blathering.

The plane was on the North side of the Citgo.

Since the plane as on the North side and pulled up, it did not hit the building.

Sorry.

[jaydeehess]

Only your witnesses are 100% right about what they saw, I see.
.

Nope, they ALL say that the plane hit the Pentagon and Robert has the plane on a significantly different path than Lyte would have us believe it took.

,,,,, but that's all OK with Lyte....................

[Lyte Trip]

They say it flew INTO the Pentagon Lyte. They have a good view from higher up and thus a better view of the upper levels including the roof Lyte. None of them has the plane continuing over the roof Lyte.

They THINK it flew into the Pentagon.

Or...

They are lying.

The plane was on the North side and pulled up.

It did not fly into the building.

[jaydeehess]

Since the plane as on the North side and pulled up, it did not hit the building.

Sorry.

You have only one person saying it was pulling up Lyte. Just one person who, you say, has the fireball occuring well enough in advance of the impact as to believe that the fireball was obscuring his view of the plane when it impacted the Pentagon.

One person, who was running up an embankemnt at the time he says that the plane was rising.

On the basis of this one snippet of this one person's statement you create a senario of the plane flying over the Pentagon and then wave your hands to address all other contrary evidence.

[twinstead]

Reg, there is no blathering.

The plane was on the North side of the Citgo.

Since the plane as on the North side and pulled up, it did not hit the building.

Sorry.

Psssst. Saying something over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

You have no right to declare that you've proved anything. Even your own witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and NOBODY saw any flyover.

Do you really think you would have a case in a court of law? Are you that divorced from reality?

[jaydeehess]

They THINK it flew into the Pentagon.

Or...

They are lying.

The plane was on the North side and pulled up.

It did not fly into the building.


yes of course, as I said above in reviewing your senario,

all the witnesses who state that the plane hit the ground floor, or that it flew along the 'official' flight path are either mistaken, fooled by the fireball and downed lamp posts, or they are lying and probably part of the complex scheme.

[apathoid]

Right, then how in the world are they witnesses that contradict the North side witnesses? Or support the South side?

So you agree that it's not extraordinary that no witnesses claim that the plane flew on the south side of the Citgo station?

Do you see what I'm getting at, Lyte? You engineered the "north side claim", noone made reference to it before you arrived on the scene. So you shouldn't ask how many said they saw it to the south. Thats dishonest.

Hundreds were in position to see the plane flyover, and not one did. That should tell you something.

[Rika]

.... I'd say something, but I just realized my troll picture isn't approiate.

So. Since I'm going to leave soon (class and all)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/153434615233b3c266.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4971)

To summarize..


1) you talked to your witnesses years after too
2) You predispose that something is suspicious and deny it as well.
3) Witnesses aren't the only evidence
4) Did you ask them where they were when they saw it, or did you just assume it's that point?

[mortimer]

Did you have any answers on the plane "witnesses" saw flying away?

I certainly don't, but I would have thought you would, since it's your silly theory and all.

But you don't. Your theory: flyover. Number of witnesses you interviewed who saw a flyover: zero. What does that say about your theory?

[Lyte Trip]

Nope, they ALL say that the plane hit the Pentagon and Robert has the plane on a significantly different path than Lyte would have us believe it took.

,,,,, but that's all OK with Lyte....................


Robert does not. He placed the plane on the North side of the Citgo. PERIOD.

He explained the right wing was closer to the canopy and the plane was further north, when we got closer to details.

We had him draw the flight path the day before his interview, in the store while he was on the job. He obviously cleared up where the plane was at, rather than quickly drawing the flight path on an image that has every little details on it.

[HyJinX]

Your witnesses are mistaken. I make mistakes all the time. I accept they were in error and I'm sure they didn't mean any harm.

[Lyte Trip]

I certainly don't, but I would have thought you would, since it's your silly theory and all.


We do. They are not telling the truth.

We have spoke with two witnesses who claimed this. Kieth Wheelhouse and Joel Sucherman.

The others are not easily reachable, but I would bring those two, and the others in for questioning since the C-130 did not do what they claimed it did. At least what Kieth Wheelhouse did.

[apathoid]

Robert does not. He placed the plane on the North side of the Citgo. PERIOD.

He explained the right wing was closer to the canopy and the plane was further north, when we got closer to details.





Of course there's that whole thing about Robert not doing what he claimed in the security video that was released. Other than that, he's a good witness for the north side claim.....oh except that he said he didn't see the impact because the bridge-mound was in the way. If it was in the way, then the plane couldn't have been to the north.

Then there's your star witness, Lagasse, whose recollection of where he was, along with the location of the cab/light pole scene - was incorrect, and in the case of the latter, by a few hundred feet.

Then there's Ed Paik who couldn't see the Navy Annex, the Citgo, or the Pentagon, and whose account of where he saw the plane is at odds with the other three, short of the aircraft involved being an F-16. He also drew two different flight paths, even though he was in no position to draw anything more than an "X" indicating the location the plane was when he saw it..


Do you honestly think your witnesses wouldn't be torn to shreds in a court of law, Lyte?

[Lyte Trip]

Your witnesses are mistaken. I make mistakes all the time. I accept they were in error and I'm sure they didn't mean any harm.

Sorry, but they think YOU are mistaken. Isn't that interesting?

Clearly you are brave guy HyJinx, so why don't you call them?

[HyJinX]

Sorry, but they think YOU are mistaken. Isn't that interesting?

Clearly you are brave guy HyJinx, so why don't you call them?

They don't know me. I'll stick with the physical evidence that is supported by the large majority of eye-witnesses.

Apathoid clearly points out that each of your witnesses' recollections are suspect.

Your 4 are clearly mistaken. People make mistakes. Preponderance of evidence and eye-witnesses trumps bad memories of 4 people.

Case closed.

How are DVD sales going so far Lyte?

[Lyte Trip]

Of course there's that whole thing about Robert not doing what he claimed in the security video that was released.

Oh you mean the video they released AFTER Aldo spoke with Robert and posted the findings? That video?


Other than that, he's a good witness for the north side claim.....oh except that he said he didn't see the impact because the bridge-mound was in the way. If it was in the way, then the plane couldn't have been to the north.

Ur silly. He was refering to the "impact" being obscured by Rt 27.

Then there's your star witness, Lagasse, whose recollection of where he was, along with the location of the cab/light pole scene - was incorrect, and in the case of the latter, by a few hundred feet.

Please. Him instinctively moving up the forwarf pump is not proof of anything. He remembered part way through the interview.

How do you know he didn't see the cab there?


Then there's Ed Paik who couldn't see the Navy Annex, the Citgo, or the Pentagon, and whose account of where he saw the plane is at odds with the other three, short of the aircraft involved being an F-16. He also drew two different flight paths, even though he was in no position to draw anything more than an "X" indicating the location the plane was when he saw it..


You're reaching again. His account is crystal clear. It was headed right for the North side of the Citgo. It crossed over to the North side of Columbia Pike.

Do you honestly think your witnesses wouldn't be torn to shreds in a court of law, Lyte?

Nope. You think we are worried? Didn't you know there were other genuine people out there? Like other officers? That plane was ont he North side of the Citgo and I guarantee there are plenty of other witnesses who will confirm this.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The roof collapsed at 9:57 so in less than 19 minutes after a major catastrophe of these proportions after he barely escaped death we're supposed to believe that Lloyd figured he'd better hurry up and try removing the pole himself!

Even if it wasn't a major world wide catastrophe would ANY ONE OF YOU attempt to remove a big long heavy light pole that was lodged in your car within minutes after a major accident?
See... this is where you part ways with reality it seems.

First, as was pointed, what you or I would do in his is situation is completely irrelevent.

Second, if you honestly believe that leaving the pole where it was is what the vast majority of the public would expect, then it has to make you wonder why the alleged planners would script its removal. Do you believe that they are just that out of touch with the expectations of the general public? If you do, then how can you simultaneously claim that they knew perfectly how the witnesses in the area would react to the alleged explosion+flyover illusion?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Can we also point out that Lyte was offered a change to see the actual car and declined or is that to much to Add. DA. is there something wrong with people who ignore the physical evidence?

[boloboffin]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/EnglandTaxiDamage.jpg

[HyJinX]

I think Lyte's motivation is to surpass the REALISTICE thread.

Here are some cats...because it's more interesting a topic:

[Disbelief]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/EnglandTaxiDamage.jpg

That's a light source, whether the sun or artificial.

Lyte, I will get back to you later to answer your incomplete reply to me and the preposterous idea that you are winning any kind of debate.

[Lyte Trip]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/EnglandTaxiDamage.jpg

Nice.

Those are private photos Lloyd's wife took. She pulled them out during our interview with Lloyd.

We took pictures of it with a digital camera. That is the flash from the digital camera.

Here is Pickering's version of the same photo from his camera. No Flash.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/264d28fb.jpg

[Lyte Trip]

I think Lyte's motivation is to surpass the REALISTICE thread.

Here are some cats...because it's more interesting a topic:


Moderators, can we stop all the meaningless cat pictures now? They have nothing to do with the thead and seem to work as way to "cleverly" insult us.

[apathoid]

Oh you mean the video they released AFTER Aldo spoke with Robert and posted the findings? That video?

Yes, that video. Is the video mistaken?


Ur silly. He was refering to the "impact" being obscured by Rt 27. Yes, the bridge-mound is a part of route 27. It's also not in line with the north flight path. However, its perfectly in line with the official flight path.



Please. Him instinctively moving up the forwarf pump is not proof of anything. He remembered part way through the interview.

I'd let that slide if he didn't majorly botch the locations of the downed poles and the cab as well.



How do you know he didn't see the cab there?

Because that's not where it was in any of the known photos of it, Lyte.


You're reaching again. His account is crystal clear. It was headed right for the North side of the Citgo. It crossed over to the North side of Columbia Pike.

I suppose one of his drawings can be said to support the north flight path, while the other can be said to support the south flight path. Again, neither is reliable because Ed was in no position to actually see anything more than a glimpse of the plane. How can he(you) say it was headed for the Citgo station when he couldn't see the citgo station?



Nope. You think we are worried? Didn't you know there were other genuine people out there? Like other officers? That plane was ont he North side of the Citgo and I guarantee there are plenty of other witnesses who will confirm this.

I'd be impressed if you can find anymore north witnesses. Meanwhile, why not take your evidence to a lawyer and get an opinion. Personally, I think you'd be laughed out of the office - but you shouldn't let a littlle humiliation stop you if you do, in fact, think you possess evidence of mass murder.

[Lyte Trip]

Can we also point out that Lyte was offered a change to see the actual car and declined or is that to much to Add. DA. is there something wrong with people who ignore the physical evidence?

The car was supposedly 90 miles away and we simply did not have the time.

We had Lloyd's full account and private images of the car on 9/12/2001.

What's odd is that Russell had fully believed from previous conversations with Lloyd that the car was at his house so we all expected to be able to examine it.

This turned out not to be the case and we did not have time for a road trip to "the country".

Why don't you go in your backyard and burn some aluminum to prove the light poles wouldn't have damaged the hood?
;)

[boloboffin]

Nice.

Those are private photos Lloyd's wife took. She pulled them out during our interview with Lloyd.

We took pictures of it with a digital camera. That is the flash from the digital camera.

Here is Pickering's version of the same photo from his camera. No Flash.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/264d28fb.jpg

Part of what I'm talking about is still in that photo.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/EnglandTaxiDamage2.jpg

So as I understand you, the planners of 9/11 faked the taxi damage, but not well enough to fool you, so they went back to the drawing board and then faked FDR evidence that proves conclusively that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. That is what you think happened?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Moderators, can we stop all the meaningless cat pictures now? They have nothing to do with the thead and seem to work as way to "cleverly" insult us.
That's what the http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/report.gif on the bottom left of each post is for, Mr. Investigator.

[apathoid]

Tags: lampost, lunacy, lyte, pentacon, pentagon


LMAO!!

[HyJinX]

Moderators, can we stop all the meaningless cat pictures now? They have nothing to do with the thead and seem to work as way to "cleverly" insult us.

You're insulted by cats? Hmmmm...how do feel about dogs?

[Calcas]

Moderators, can we stop all the meaningless cat pictures now? They have nothing to do with the thead and seem to work as way to "cleverly" insult us.


Cat pictures are easier to find than pictures of loons.

Oh, I found one.

Maybe this is what flew over the Pentagon.

http://www.colors-wind.com/jackite/images/Loon.jpg

[HyJinX]

At 12:56
HyJinx,

Can you do one of the cat flying over the pentagon? That would be great.

At 3:17
Moderators, can we stop all the meaningless cat pictures now? They have nothing to do with the thead and seem to work as way to "cleverly" insult us.

...let us not forget, Lyte, you asked me to post pictures of cats. It's seems your memory is about as good as your 4 "smoking gun" witnesses.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The car was supposedly 90 miles away and we simply did not have the time.

We had Lloyd's full account and private images of the car on 9/12/2001.

What's odd is that Russell had fully believed from previous conversations with Lloyd that the car was at his house so we all expected to be able to examine it.

This turned out not to be the case and we did not have time for a road trip to "the country".

Why don't you go in your backyard and burn some aluminum to prove the light poles wouldn't have damaged the hood?
;)


Because I am waiting on a message from Dr Steven E. Jones right now. I am right now investigating something else if Chlorinated water can dissolve aluminum and guess what I found out, in some circumstances it can.

The research goes on.
anyway I would much rather play right now with explosives like hydrogen oh the things chemistry can do like make planes disappear.
http://chainsawsanders.com/ironclorideZinccloride.JPG
Then Lightweight Aluminum lamp posts.

[Lyte Trip]

Yes, that video. Is the video mistaken?


That data has been proven to be manipulated and/or altered. Besides the fact that Russell Pickering proved how they removed the camera that had the view of the Pentagon and continue to sequester the tape of this view......http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread225549/pg1

Here is an analysis from a security professional with 16 year experience installing CCTV systems:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4992



Yes, the bridge-mound is a part of route 27. It's also not in line with the north flight path. However, its perfectly in line with the official flight path.
The mound in front of him at the citgo station is the only one that obstructed his view. He ran to the top of it and saw the tail of the plane "pull up" and claims the "fireball" obscured the alleged impact.




I'd let that slide if he didn't majorly botch the locations of the downed poles and the cab as well.

Why would he remember the exact locations of the light poles when he didn't even see them get hit? The location of the cab and light poles is a relatively insignificant detail compared to what side of the station the plane flew.




Because that's not where it was in any of the known photos of it, Lyte.

Regardless he did not see the poles or the cab get hit so there is no reason to suggest he should or would remember those relatively insignificant details or that the fact that he was incorrect about this has ANY bearing whatsoever on his definitive placement of the plane on the north side.

That would be called a logical fallacy.




I suppose one of his drawings can be said to support the north flight path, while the other can be said to support the south flight path. Again, neither is reliable because Ed was in no position to actually see anything more than a glimpse of the plane. How can he(you) say it was headed for the Citgo station when he couldn't see the citgo station?

He was close enough to it that the direction he has the plane headed is enough. The fact that it passes over Columbia Pike is enough as well. Granted.....by itself Edward's account wouldn't be solid evidence....but in light of the citgo station witnesses it is 100% corroboration.





I'd be impressed if you can find anymore north witnesses. Meanwhile, why not take your evidence to a lawyer and get an opinion. Personally, I think you'd be laughed out of the office - but you shouldn't let a littlle humiliation stop you if you do, in fact, think you possess evidence of mass murder.Yes I know that you choose to approach 9/11 truth from a lawyer's perspective. The job of a lawyer is to win the case for their client not find the truth.

The fact that ALL witnesses at the citgo saw report the plane in the same place should be enough. Even witnesses like Mike Walter any Penny Elgas who report the plane "banked" support our case.

[Lyte Trip]

Because I am waiting on a message from Dr Steven E. Jones right now. I am right now investigating something else if Chlorinated water can dissolve aluminum and guess what I found out, in some circumstances it can.

The research goes on.
anyway I would much rather play right now with explosives like hydrogen oh the things chemistry can do like make planes disappear.
http://chainsawsanders.com/ironclorideZinccloride.JPG
Then Lightweight Aluminum lamp posts.

Cool!

Perhaps they used chlorinated water to remove the poles!
:D

[Lyte Trip]

Part of what I'm talking about is still in that photo.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/EnglandTaxiDamage2.jpg



It is a reflection of the broken windshield and roof of the car.

You can see the Capitol Cab sign.

[boloboffin]

Oh, it gets better.

I got this graphic from PFT or CIT, somebody. Here's what they think happened on September 11th at the Pentagon.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/cabpole1plant.jpg

The night before, the other four poles were planted where they were found. Nobody whizzing along in traffic later would look at them.

The last pole was aboard a trailer (along with other props). A few minutes before the scheduled Pentagon hit, the trailer comes north on 395 (follow the red arrow). It takes the exit (somebody tosses some glass out onto the exit here), continues on Columbia, takes the next exit and stops right at the yellow square.

England is now in place as well.

The plane illusion happens. At this point, the guys planting the evidence HAVE TO have seen one thing - the plane didn't approach the Pentagon correctly.

Here these guys had been setting up physical evidence all night and all morning long for the south approach -- and the plane had flown to the north of the Citgo! Completely wrong!

And yet they continue to pull forward, help England plant the last pole, apparently almost getting the cab location wrong (because Lagasse places the cab back at first). Can't you imagine THAT conversation?

OMG, the plane din't line up with the evidence!

OMG! Quick, let's set the taxi up back here!

You Fool! All the other evidence is over there! We can't put that here!

OMG! Did that Pentagon cop see us????

OMG!

Quick, move the cab on up here! C'mon, the guys planting the evidence on the lawn are starting to make fun of us!

*sigh*

[boloboffin]

Then why doesn't the spot on the hood I'm pointing out look like a mirror image of any part of the windshield?

I see the Capital Cab sign. It's a mirror image of the sign on top. The spot I'm pointing out isn't a mirror image of anything on the windshield. It would have to be, to be a reflection of the windshield damage, wouldn't it?

Oh, and you missed a bit of my post:

So as I understand you, the planners of 9/11 faked the taxi damage, but not well enough to fool you, so they went back to the drawing board and then faked FDR evidence that proves conclusively that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. That is what you think happened?

That is what you think happened, right? The first faked evidence wasn't enough, so they faked some more evidence - and got it so wrong that their faked evidence actually proved the opposite of what they wanted to prove.

That is what you think happened, right?

[tsig]

Moderators, can we stop all the meaningless cat pictures now? They have nothing to do with the thead and seem to work as way to "cleverly" insult us.

If you are insulted by cat pictures they

[Lyte Trip]

See... this is where you part ways with reality it seems.

First, as was pointed, what you or I would do in his is situation is completely irrelevent.

Second, if you honestly believe that leaving the pole where it was is what the vast majority of the public would expect, then it has to make you wonder why the alleged planners would script its removal. Do you believe that they are just that out of touch with the expectations of the general public? If you do, then how can you simultaneously claim that they knew perfectly how the witnesses in the area would react to the alleged explosion+flyover illusion?

This is why you fail at critical thinking.

OF COURSE crime investigators think about what people would normally do and what is out of the ordinary when trying to determine the truth about a crime.

We aren't hypothetically analyzing unrelated points.

We are investigating a world wide black operation of mass murder.


In regards to the planners........well they made a lot of mistakes. Another question would be why didn't they damage the hood?

Clearly staging Lloyd's scene would have to happen as quickly and discreetly as possible.

[rwguinn]

If you are insulted by cat pictures they
OMG! They got tsig!

:dl:

[Lyte Trip]

Then why doesn't the spot on the hood I'm pointing out look like a mirror image of any part of the windshield?

I see the Capital Cab sign. It's a mirror image of the sign on top. The spot I'm pointing out isn't a mirror image of anything on the windshield. It would have to be, to be a reflection of the windshield damage, wouldn't it?


Angles of the reflection and camera etc change the perspective. You can also see trees in the reflection. Are you suggesting the image was faked?


Oh, and you missed a bit of my post:

That is what you think happened, right? The first faked evidence wasn't enough, so they faked some more evidence - and got it so wrong that their faked evidence actually proved the opposite of what they wanted to prove.

That is what you think happened, right?

Huh?

When did I say that?

I have no explanation for the anomalous FDR.

That's up to the NTSB to respond to.

[qarnos]

1. Are the chances GREATER that the pole would cause damage to his hood? Or is it LESS likely that the pole would cause damage to his hood in such an event?

About 10 years ago my neighbour won the Lottery. Are the chances GREATER that he would win the Lottery? Or is it LESS likely that he would win the Lottery?

What does this prove?

Abosultely NOTHING!

You can not calculate the odds of something happened after it has happened and expect any kind of meaningful result.

[qarnos]

Huh?

When did I say that?

I have no explanation for the anomalous FDR.

That's up to the NTSB to respond to.

No, first it is up to you to demonstrate an anomoly exists. AntiSophist demonstrated a while ago, with evidence, that the FDR data is entirely within the error tolerance of the FDR.

The NTSB more than likely have no idea who you are or what your claims are. You are of no significance to them, and will continue to be so unless you can actually prove anything, which you can't - otherwise you would be out there saving the world from the NWO instead of arguing with us.

[qarnos]

If you are insulted by cat pictures they

Interesting theory, but I

[boloboffin]

Angles of the reflection and camera etc change the perspective. You can also see trees in the reflection. Are you suggesting the image was faked?

Not that much. The Capital Cab sign is clearly the Capital Cab sign in the reflection on the hood. However, the damage to the hood I'm pointing out isn't a mirror image of anything in the windshield, no way, no how.

It's damage to the hood from the pole. Something your own picture (a picture of a picture) shows.

Making your claim of no damage to the hood false.

I am not suggesting the image is faked. Why would you even think that?

Huh?

When did I say that?

I have no explanation for the anomalous FDR.

That's up to the NTSB to respond to.

No, no. This is your theory, Craig. Show some responsibility for it.

You say that the cab evidence was faked. You say the FDR evidence was faked.

The conspiracy that faked one faked the other. You're saying that they went back to fake that FDR evidence, KNOWING THAT THE OTHER EVIDENCE WASN'T HOLDING UP, and yet somehow faked evidence that proved 180 degrees the opposite of what they wanted that evidence to say.

That is what you are saying, isn't it? That is the natural result of believing the things you want us to believe, isn't it?

Show some responsibility for your theory.

[Lyte Trip]

Dude......it's a reflection.

Nobody else will assert that it's damage because it is NOT.

And even if it was it's limited to about 2 inches. That would be insignificant and the point still stands. However it is not damage.

It is clearly a reflection.

As far as the FDR goes......ummmmm no.

That has nothing to do with our assertion that the plane was on the north side of the station.

NOTHING.

Yes we believe the data is anomalous and yes we believe this is worthy of attention but this has no bearing whatsoever on the testimony we have presented in The PentaCon or our hypothesis.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Cool!

Perhaps they used chlorinated water to remove the poles!
:D

That would explain the hydrogen propelled light poles sticking though car windows then wouldn't it.
Aluminum can form aluminum Hydroxide.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a601013.html

[boloboffin]

Yes we believe the data is anomalous and yes we believe this is worthy of attention but this has no bearing whatsoever on the testimony we have presented in The PentaCon or our hypothesis.

So you will not be responsible for how reality intersects with your theory. Your willingness to throw the FDR data over the side if it conflicts with your own bias is duly noted, no matter how diplomatically you try to express it.

On Edit: And the Pentagon trailer plant IS your hypothesis. Isn't it? How else does the light pole evidence get planted? How else does the cab get put into place? If the physical evidence is planted, then it had to be actually put into place, right? That is your theory, right?

So your explanation for the plant continuing despite the certain knowledge of the planters that the plane had not followed the correct path would be what exactly?

[tsig]

OMG! They got tsig!

:dl:

They are more powerful than we can know.

Neveer look over your sholder.

And never finish a

[tsig]

Interesting theory, but I

Surealism is nice

but it has a great price

when there are no facts

all the hacks

can make it up in a trice



Think not lest ye be thought about.

[Lyte Trip]

On Edit: And the Pentagon trailer plant IS your hypothesis. Isn't it? How else does the light pole evidence get planted? How else does the cab get put into place? If the physical evidence is planted, then it had to be actually put into place, right? That is your theory, right?

So your explanation for the plant continuing despite the certain knowledge of the planters that the plane had not followed the correct path would be what exactly?

Yes the physical damage had to have been staged.

There are 2 potential reasons why the plane was not on the correct path:

1. A mistake.

2. The plane was deliberately off the path so if anyone saw it fly over it would be confused with a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered off" immediately after the explosion.

In light of the cover stories and because it was so easy to find people on the street that saw the plane and described it as "white" number 2 makes the most sense.

[Undesired Walrus]

They THINK it flew into the Pentagon.

Or...

They are lying.

The plane was on the North side and pulled up.

It did not fly into the building.

Sorry Lyte. Back to the original point of this thread.

You claim Lloyd Englands account, that is far more horrific than you or any of us can imagine, was fabricated, and the man is a liar.

You are a disgrace.

[Lyte Trip]

Sorry Lyte. Back to the original point of this thread.

You claim Lloyd Englands account, that is far more horrific than you or any of us can imagine, was fabricated, and the man is a liar.

You are a disgrace.

Call it what you want.

It's backed up with facts.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plus Lloyd's account is physically impossible.

Sorry that the implications of this are so upsetting.

[tsig]

Yes the physical damage had to have been staged.

There are 2 potential reasons why the plane was not on the correct path:

1. A mistake.

2. The plane was deliberately off the path so if anyone saw it fly over it would be confused with a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered off" immediately after the explosion.

In light of the cover stories and because it was so easy to find people on the street that saw the plane and described it as "white" number 2 makes the most sense.

There is always the third way.

But that way lies reality

[tsig]

Call it what you want.

It's backed up with facts.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plus Lloyd's account is physically impossible.

Sorry that the implications of this are so upsetting.

Why did the whole Lloyd thing happen?

[Undesired Walrus]

Call it what you want.

It's backed up with facts.

No it isn't

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

No they do not

Plus Lloyd's account is physically impossible.

No it is not

Sorry that the implications of this are so upsetting.

Sorry your life is so meaningless you have to take it out on a taxi driver.




You are a disgrace

[John Blonn]

I <3 argument by assertion.

Anyway.

A = Lagasse and Brook's testimony is correct.
~A = Lagasse and Brook's testimony is false.
B = North of Citgo path is true.
~B = North of Citgo path is false.
C = Lloyd's account is true.
~C = Lloyd's account is false.
D = Official story is true.
~D = Official story is false.

Lyte's Reasoning:

A
A-->B
Therefore B

Then given B
B-->~C
and
B-->~D

Therefore ~C and ~D

Problem

If C
C-->~B
Therefore ~B

Given then ~B
~B-->~A
Therefore ~A

D does not follow from above but ~A certainly does, as well as ~B.

Conclusion
Lyte believes that A is true. If so, then his conclusions follow.
However, C could also be true. If it were, then ~A must follow.

Lyte refuses to see the validity of the problem.

[boloboffin]

Yes the physical damage had to have been staged.

There are 2 potential reasons why the plane was not on the correct path:

1. A mistake.

2. The plane was deliberately off the path so if anyone saw it fly over it would be confused with a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered off" immediately after the explosion.

In light of the cover stories and because it was so easy to find people on the street that saw the plane and described it as "white" number 2 makes the most sense.

So you believe that the falsified physical evidence on the ground was deliberately placed where the plane was not going to fly. All of it - from the light poles to the Pentagon crash scene - all of it was deliberately staged somewhere where the planners knew the plane was not going to fly.

You think that this makes the most sense.

[Lyte Trip]

Why did the whole Lloyd thing happen?

To support the lie. Plain and simple.

They fabricated the physical damage and bottom line the light poles were the most convincing physical evidence that there was a plane.

When the "missile" theories came out nobody was paying attention to the light poles.

Just the lack of debris, anomalous damage to the building etc.

But obviously a missile couldn't have knocked those poles down.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

This is propaganda gold because clearly it's pretty hard to imagine a guy like Lloyd being involved.

[HyJinX]

Call it what you want.

It's backed up with facts.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plus Lloyd's account is physically impossible.

Sorry that the implications of this are so upsetting.

Every time you lie...I'm gonna bring out the badger.

[Undesired Walrus]

To support the lie. Plain and simple.

They fabricated the physical damage and bottom line the light poles were the most convincing physical evidence that there was a plane.

When the "missile" theories came out nobody was paying attention to the light poles.

Just the lack of debris, anomalous damage to the building etc.

But obviously a missile couldn't have knocked those poles down.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

This is propaganda gold because clearly it's pretty hard to imagine a guy like Lloyd being involved.

Real people died here Lyte. Real people were traumitised.

And you do all this to try and copy Loose Change.

Sick.

[boloboffin]

Real people died here Lyte. Real people were traumitised.

And you do all this to try and copy Loose Change.

Sick.

And Lloyd England was very nearly one of the dead.

[Redtail]

Every time you lie...I'm gonna bring out the badger.

I'm bringing out Ceiling Cat.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_120444602e21e8016a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4728)

[Lyte Trip]

Innocent people are dying EVERY DAY because of 9/11.

Countless 10's of thousands.

We aren't copying anybody.

We are reporting the evidence in a quest for justice for those that have been and will be killed because of this heinous crime.

[tsig]

To support the lie. Plain and simple.

They fabricated the physical damage and bottom line the light poles were the most convincing physical evidence that there was a plane.

When the "missile" theories came out nobody was paying attention to the light poles.

Just the lack of debris, anomalous damage to the building etc.

But obviously a missile couldn't have knocked those poles down.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

This is propaganda gold because clearly it's pretty hard to imagine a guy like Lloyd being involved.

So the Lloyd thing was done for propaganda effect?

How far do we have to go to fool the rubes?

Can I have the playbook? this is getting cinfusing.

[Gaspode]

Innocent people are dying EVERY DAY because of 9/11.

Countless 10's of thousands.

We aren't copying anybody.

We are reporting the evidence in a quest for justice for those that have been and will be killed because of this heinous crime.

How are people dying every day because of 9/11?

[tsig]

Innocent people are dying EVERY DAY because of 9/11.

Countless 10's of thousands.

We aren't copying anybody.

We are reporting the evidence in a quest for justice for those that have been and will be killed because of this heinous crime.

Every day people die

Every day people lie

We can't count the lies

Only the bodies


One thousand coincidences do not amount to a single fact.

[HyJinX]

Every day people die

Every day people lie

We can't count the lies

Only the bodies


One thousand coincidences do not amount to a single fact.

That's a keeper.

[Lyte Trip]

So the Lloyd thing was done for propaganda effect?

How far do we have to go to fool the rubes?

Can I have the playbook? this is getting cinfusing.

Here ya go!
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/miscellanious/oligarchalcollectivism.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

[tsig]

Innocent people are dying EVERY DAY because of 9/11.

Countless 10's of thousands.

We aren't copying anybody.

We are reporting the evidence in a quest for justice for those that have been and will be killed because of this heinous crime.

Every day people die

Every day people lie

We can't count the lies

Only the bodies


One thousand coincidences do not amount to a single fact.

[Lyte Trip]

How are people dying every day because of 9/11?

Are you being facetious?

Besides the countless first responders that are sick and dying as a direct result of toxic dust if you haven't noticed since 9/11 we have been told we are in a permanent global war against a shadowy uncatchable enemy labeled "terror".

You really ought to read the news more often.

[tsig]

Here ya go!
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/miscellanious/oligarchalcollectivism.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Aha! so our big lie is the govenet did it.

or is the big lie is that there is no big lie?

If you tell enough lies how can you know the truth?

[Gaspode]

Are you being facetious?

Besides the countless first responders that are sick and dying as a direct result of toxic dust if you haven't noticed since 9/11 we have been told we are in a permanent global war against a shadowy uncatchable enemy labeled "terror".

You really ought to read the news more often.


I wasn't aware the toxic dust was causing deaths on a daily basis. That does not appear to be the case.

And the US did not need the events of September 11 2001 as a excuse to invade Iraq.

[tsig]

Are you being facetious?

Besides the countless first responders that are sick and dying as a direct result of toxic dust if you haven't noticed since 9/11 we have been told we are in a permanent global war against a shadowy uncatchable enemy labeled "terror".

You really ought to read the news more often.

Those first responders are directly responsible for their own deaths according to you.

You really ought to think more often

[twinstead]

Lyte I love how you imply that anybody who doesn't share your world view just HAS to simply not been paying attention to world events.

Of course. It's because we don't know what's going on in the world and don't think for ourselves. That's the ONLY way anybody can disagree with you, huh?

:boggled:

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Nope, they ALL say that the plane hit the Pentagon and Robert has the plane on a significantly different path than Lyte would have us believe it took.

,,,,, but that's all OK with Lyte....................

Robert does not. He placed the plane on the North side of the Citgo. PERIOD.

He explained the right wing was closer to the canopy and the plane was further north, when we got closer to details.

We had him draw the flight path the day before his interview, in the store while he was on the job. He obviously cleared up where the plane was at, rather than quickly drawing the flight path on an image that has every little details on it.


Begging to differ but Robert places the flight path between two trees on the edge of the Citgo station. That is he indicates that is where it went which is a dozen or so feet north of where he originally drew the plane. Originally he had it going directly over the canopy. None of your other witnesses put the plane so close to the station, not by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Yes, he has it going north of the station. So it matters not a whit to you where anyone says the plane was, starboard wing over the canopy of a hundred yards past the canopy. To you this means that Brooks, Lagasse, and Robert have the plane along the same path.
If one of them had said it came from over Baltimore that would be just fine since that is north of the Citgo station at the Pentagon.

[beachnut]

First of all this isn't very plausible because a significant amount of the top of the pole would have to be lodged through the frame of the car behind the back seat in order for this to work.

I suppose it's hypothetically possible. But it's not possible in reality when you consider the facts.

The top of the pole was curved like this:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/DSC_0420.jpg

So pretty much the entire curve would have to be lodged in the car for your scenario to work.

But let's suggest for a moment that it was.

Did you even listen to Lloyd's account?

He says he personally REMOVED the pole with help from a silent stranger but that he FELL DOWN in the process of removing it because he didn't know the top end was curved.

He made no mention of it being difficult to remove because it was lodged in the car.

And here is Lloyd on the street with the pole removed already. But look at the roof line of the Pentagon:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/239a.jpg

It's still intact!

The roof collapsed at 9:57 so in less than 19 minutes after a major catastrophe of these proportions after he barely escaped death we're supposed to believe that Lloyd figured he'd better hurry up and try removing the pole himself!

Even if it wasn't a major world wide catastrophe would ANY ONE OF YOU attempt to remove a big long heavy light pole that was lodged in your car within minutes after a major accident?

Wouldn't you just wait for the police and let them deal with it?

I met Lloyd. He is a small rather frail old man. Even with help I can't imagine him removing that pole in ANY circumstances.

Plus imagine how hard it would be to remove a pole that was lodged in the frame of the car so much that the light top end supported the heavy long base end being suspended in mid-air over the hood!

AND the hood was never even scratched as he removed the pole and while he fell down doing it!


Will at least ONE of you put your critical thinking caps on for a moment and admit how absurd this all is?
:confused:
I will give you some help. Do not show physical evidence that proves your stuff wrong. These photos show poles hit by a plane doing 463KIAS and on a final heading as found in the FDR recovered from the Pentagon of flight 77 alone with DNA and bodies.

So if you want to make up the north of the CITGO station stuff, do not show evidence that counters it. Just a reminder, your witnesses, a few of them have statements recorded 5 years ago that prove your statements wrong.

When you argue about physics I suggest you take some course on accident investigation at USC, it would help you understand how you statements are wrong in this very post. Good luck, and you need to stop presenting counter evidence to you own position. Does anyone believe your statements?

[Lyte Trip]

I wasn't aware the toxic dust was causing deaths on a daily basis. That does not appear to be the case.

And the US did not need the events of September 11 2001 as a excuse to invade Iraq.

First responders are most certainly in the process of dying as a result of 9/11.

What a shame that you would minimize the daily hell they are going through and the inevitable result of their sickness.

And I beg to differ about Iraq.

Iraq is called the "central front of the war on terror "and 9/11 most certainly was used as the pretext that justified this war.

Cheney to this day cites a connection between Saddam and OBL.

[Lyte Trip]

Those first responders are directly responsible for their own deaths according to you.

You really ought to think more often

Quote where I have ever accused first responders as being the perpetrators of this crime.

Anyway....gotta go for now.

[beachnut]

Every day people die

Every day people lie

We can't count the lies

Only the bodies


One thousand coincidences do not amount to a single fact.
So you lie because you think others are telling lies? So you make up the north of the Citgo station story without evidence? Why are you telling lies about 9/11? Why not get some facts and attack the reasons instead of making up lies?

[jaydeehess]

From my post 101 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2553691&postcount=101) summary of your senario Lyte

gg) all the witnesses who state that the plane hit the ground floor, or that it flew along the 'official' flight path are either mistaken, fooled by the fireball and downed lamp posts, or they are lying and probably part of the complex scheme.

True or false Lyte?

h) the plane pulls up fast enough and banks out of the area fast enough that no one, on other sides than the impact side of the Pentagon, who's attention would be drawn to the huge orange fireball, would notice this large jet travelling at no more than about 80 feet agl as it passed through and behind the fireball.

True or false Lyte?

,,, and of course the second plane you propose was there (which none of your Citgo stars saw) also pulled up and banked away and no one noticed it either. Right?

Two planes roaring along and veering off and pulling up near the Pentagon and no one noticed. Right?

,,, and you see nothing wrong with believeing that. Right?

i) the actual flight 77 and all of its souls on board were then caused to disappear or the flight and all those people were faked. Fake life histories, fake families, faked phone calls, no such flight.



True or false Lyte?

[jaydeehess]

Cheney to this day cites a connection between Saddam and OBL.

,, and at last count less than 20% of the population of the USA believes that Irag had any connection to 9/11, IIRC.

,, and when Bush first made the allusions that Iraq and 9/11 were somehow tied together he could not convince more than 50% of the US population at that time. He certainly did not convince most of the MSM. You know the MSM that are in the pocket of the administration, that MSM.

Basically only the Fox Noise Channel backed that idea.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

First responders are most certainly in the process of dying as a result of 9/11.

What a shame that you would minimize the daily hell they are going through and the inevitable result of their sickness.

And I beg to differ about Iraq.

Iraq is called the "central front of the war on terror "and 9/11 most certainly was used as the pretext that justified this war.

Cheney to this day cites a connection between Saddam and OBL.


The first responders are dying form HCL, SO2, and DIOXIN exposure from the very conditions that most probably doomed the buildings in the first place fire and strong acids present in them.

The fact that the building have the natural conditions in them for their own violent destruction kind of mutes your evidence on the pentagon, because no controlled Demolition no need for faking a plane strike into the pentagon.

The more I research this the more I see just how bad the conditions in the buildings actually were.

[Calcas]

Just to be clear, Lyte does not believe that the plane his witnesses saw was AA77. He refers to 1 or 2 other witnesses who described it as "a white plane" and disregards all of the other witnesses. Typical.

So, not only was there some kind of magical flyover that nobody saw, it wasn't AA77.

[jhunter1163]

I'll blow my own horn here a bit and point out that I noticed the same damaged trim-strip that Boloboffin pointed out a long time ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2149047#post2149047

I didn't get an answer then and I doubt Boloboffin will get one now.

[boloboffin]

Oh, I got more than enough answers, believe you me. "That's a reflection, and even if it is damage, it's not REAL damage."

I'm willing to spot him the flawless hood in exchange for Craig's jawdropping assertion that the 9/11 planners intentionally faked the physical evidence in a direction that they knew the plane was not going to fly. Craig evidently wants the first ever Lifetime Achievement Stundie.

[tsig]

So you lie because you think others are telling lies? So you make up the north of the Citgo station story without evidence? Why are you telling lies about 9/11? Why not get some facts and attack the reasons instead of making up lies?

I think you do not understand my position

fire is hot

heat weakens steel

gravity

[jaydeehess]

Here is what happened:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/cabSide1.jpg
(courtesy: -Raven- @ LCF)



or it could have landed on his car thusly(please excuse my poor graphics ability) this would be a top down view;
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1295946315d046770e.bmp

The pole comes down , the end of the curved part hitting the window and coming through it. The car is moving ta 45 MPH, that is 66 feet per second. The car would travel the length of the curved part of the pole(about 6 feet ) in 0.1 seconds. Lloyd hits the brakes and turns the wheel to the right away from the direction the pole came from(a natural response), the pole will not come out since it is lieing in the space between the windsheild and the hood. The car skids to the position we see in the pictures and the pole, having been removed by Lloyd and the other man, gets put down where we see it in the pictures.

It would still match Lloyd's drawing. An artist would know how to illustrate what he saw with true perpective but Lloyd is not an artist.

[JimBenArm]

For Lyte upon his return, which he no doubt will:
You call yourself an investigator. What other investigations have you done? Who have you brought to justice, and where? Who asked you to do this? What forensic skills do you have? What forensic labs do you have at your disposal?
I don't care about what you say the evidence says. You have no standing to interpret it, no ability to do so, no education to do so, no facilities to do so. You are a sorry musician trying to pretend he's Lt. Columbo, and failing at it miserably. Give it up, dude, you're the biggest laughing stock since William Hung thought he could sing! And at least he had some entertainment value!

[beachnut]

I think you do not understand my position

fire is hot

heat weakens steel

gravityI think I messed up and missed the Lyte trip post.

imdumb -> I missed, where do I send the beer...?

[tsig]

I think I messed up and missed the Lyte trip post.

imdumb -> I missed, where do I send the beer...?

Just put in the nearest black hole.

[beachnut]

it is on its way

[Rrramon]

Lyte, in the scientific community, when one is assailing a conventionally held theory, they generally offer an alternative theory which can then be held up to the same scrutiny.

I think that, since everyone here on both sides of this issue claims to be on the side of science and logic, you should then play by those same rules.

Granted we accept that this man's account is physically impossible (which it doesn't look like anyone here is ready to grant, myself included, but let's just do it for the sake of argument), what is one plausible theory that would explain why he would make up this fantastical story about a plane sending a light pole through his windshield?

Bear in mind you don't have to claim it is the gospel truth. I am just looking for one possible scenario that would explain why he would lie about this.

[Undesired Walrus]

Lyte, are you going to do a course in accident investigation, to see if Lloyd's account is impossible?

[twinstead]

Lyte, in the scientific community, when one is assailing a conventionally held theory, they generally offer an alternative theory which can then be held up to the same scrutiny.


But in CT world, once any real or imagined anomaly is found in a conventionally held theory, any pet theory can be substituted in its place no matter if it can be held up to the same scrutiny or not.

It all depends on the world view and politics of the CT, be he from the right or left. Extremists have no business investigating anything, as our resident ideologue Lyte readily illustrates.

[Belz...]

We have 3 witnesses all placing the plane on the North side of the Citgo.

And we have physical evidence, and witnesses, who say otherwise.

We have Lloyd England allegedly driving 50-55 mph, 40 mph in our interview, in the center lane according to Lloyd.

As he nears pole 1, it is allegedly struck by a 44,000 lb wing assembly of a 757 allegedly traveling 530 mph.

Please stop trying to make it sound worse than it really is. You're not helping your case.

Allegedly pole 1 is severed and the 30 ft base is speared into his cab, at an obvious angle, which it then straightens to allow it to make it's way into his backseat on only the passenger side.

This is the same form of logic that folks use for the "magic bullet" theory. It's a strawman, pure and simple.

LLOYD ENGLAND, WHO WAS DRIVING IN THE CENTER LANE, SPINS SIDEWAYS WITH A POLE IN HIS WINDSHIELD AND ENDS UP SIDEWAYS IN THE SAME LANE.

Yes, indeed.

1. Are the chances GREATER that the pole would cause damage to his hood? Or is it LESS likely that the pole would cause damage to his hood in such an event?

Irrelevant. Those are two possibilities, none of which are impossible (which is a tautology, of course. The mere fact that they are possibilities precludes them from being impossible.) Even if one is LESS likely, why would you choose to ignore it ?

Are the chances greater that his hood would be damaged while spinning out with the pole in his windshield in the air as he drew? Or are the odds greater that his hood would remain untouched with a pole in the air as he spins out sideways.

Again, you're trying to make "more likely" mean "the only possibility". That is simply not true.

Would it be more likely that they would remove this very heavy pole toward the direction of the shoulder, which is the direction they were pulling out towards?

And again.

Or would they remove it, walk around the car place it an angle across the center lane, for it to later be moved leaving a scratch in the asphalt?

Which is more likely?

Irrelevant.

Obviously the gov't has been so forthcoming with evidence to prove the impact.

Look at all the videos we recieved and how long it took to get them.

This seems like a double-standard to me. The evidence you've seen, you claim was faked or planted. The evidence you DON'T see, you claim is being withheld. Sauce for the goose, Lyte. Why would you care if evidence is being withheld ? If it were presented and supported the "official story", you'd probably just keep saying it is fake.

The damage is clearly anomolous, even being called "counter-intuitive" by official story proponents.

Again, just because something is unlikely (say, like 4 planes being hijacked and rammed into buildings on the same day -- if it were likely, there would have been procedures in place to prevent such a thing) doesn't mean it can't happen.

And intuition is a poor substitute for reason.

95% of pilots and A & P mechanics who are members, not posters, at PFT do not believe a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Truth is not a popularity contest.

[Belz...]

So all 4 were all mistaken simultaneously?

Lying simultaneously?

Not remembering correctly simultaneously?

Your use of the word "simultaneously" is misleading. Their accounts seem to agree on ONE important point. But it doesn't follow that those accounts are correct. In fact, your own strategy can be used against you, here. If you claim the witnesses who support the "official story" were TOLD what they think, then it's entirely possible that, by asking leading questions many years after the facts, you got exactly the answers you were looking for from those four people.

Are you certain everyone would have been focused on a cab while there was a flaming hole in the side of the pentagon and potential other plane coming to hit them?

After nearly being speared by a metal pole ? I'd wager my focus could be a little off.

Are you certain everyone would have been focused on 4 poles laid out in the sloped down grassy lawn as they drove down the highway listening to reports of the attacks in NY, scanning the sky for planes?

I'm not sure they would've missed the government agents planting them, either.

Are you certain someone would have seen a pole and/or some debris dropped from a truck? Are you certain it wasn't already on the shoulder and then moved the resting spot?

Irrelevant question. How can you be certain of some negative assertion ?

So now you are accusing me of leading ALL 4 witnesses? So you are suggesting they all saw it on the South side of the Citgo, and I convinced them otherwise, by leading them. Ok THAT is what you call a conspiracy theory.

No, it isn't.

They could not accomplish it without being seen.
You simply don't know that.

Yes, he does. There were simply too many people on site. And even if he DIDN'T know, neither do you, so the exercice is pointless, and yours is an argument from ignorance.

Again, most people were concerned about two things. Staring at the action going on at the Pentagon and another plane arriving. What if the pole and debris were already on the shoulder and were simply moved into position.

That's a mighty big gamble for the conspirators, don't you think ? If a single witness turns around in shock, he'll see them planting evidence. Not the kind of headline you want.

What we do know is the plane was not near the pole that was allegedly struck.

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

Well fortunately for us, the *opinion* of an anonymous poster at Jref does not speak for the rest of the world.

Right back at you, lieutenant.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I like how Lyte makes it sound as if 3-4 witnesses is a colossally huge number that no one can afford to ignore.

...and then goes on to ignore, at a minimum, 26 witnesses...

[twinstead]

I like how Lyte makes it sound as if 3-4 witnesses is a colossally huge number that no one can afford to ignore.

...and then goes on to ignore, at a minimum, 26 witnesses...

And don't forget the physical evidence. You know, the stuff that's all planted or fake?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Anybody else notice the degredation of the edge at the bottom of he light pole, on the inside of the bend, Looks like something dragged or pushed that edge down the road while it was in contact with the road.

[Belz...]

Nope, you simply bypassed them in another thread. Don't worry, you have proven to me you know little to nothing about them.

Ah, another vague declaration to help support your case and insinuate i "know little to nothing ".

It wasn't wavue, and he didn't insinuate. He flat out said it.

That's the point, you have no idea.

Neither do you. Four witnesses out of over a hundred do not make your theory a fact.

Four different people about a simple right or left claim?

Yes. Even something as simple as that.

Yes I am saying that is impossible. Especially because it didn't happen.

Circular reasoning.

But your accusations towards myself and the witnesses are noted.

Well, we've noted your own accusations towards Lloyd long ago.

So which is it? Did I lead them? Or was there no accuracy due to "time degrades on memory"? All four were lead and there was no accuracy due to time degards on memory. Gotcha-you know you contradicted yourself, right?

Gosh, you CTers are so damn bad with logic. There is no contradiction -- the two are not mutually exclusive.

Are you a pilot? Do you think a pilot would be comfortable with testing 5 break away poles in 757 going 500+ mph? Do you think he would have confidence in the wings not being damaged enough to impede a successful flight away from the poles after?

If he was going to crash into a building anyway ??

Um, the evidence is there. We've been questioning it since day one. We have the proof now. You can speculate all you want.

Again, eyewitness accounts do NOT constitute proof when they contradicts the physical evidence. In fact, they pretty much never constitute proof.

That's when I know I am winning a debate, when i am accused on evading questions.

Interesting. When someone accuses me of evading questions, the only thing that I know for sure is that I MAY have missed a question. And I wasn't aware this was about "winning". Thanks for clearing that up.

The plane was on the North side of the Citgo.

Since the plane as on the North side and pulled up, it did not hit the building.

Non sequitur. The plane could very well have flown to the north of the Citgo, pulled up, hit the building, and the evidence was later planeted. It's a stupid scenario, but it shows that your conclusion doesn't follow.

They THINK it flew into the Pentagon.

Or...

They are lying.

It's amazing you can say this about the witnesses that DON'T support your hypothesis, but take offense when the same is implied about those who DO. How can you continue to apply such a double-standard and not notice ?

Sorry, but they think YOU are mistaken. Isn't that interesting?

Only to the extent that it just proves my point.

Is the video mistaken?
That data has been proven to be manipulated and/or altered.

What do you mean "proven" ?

Why would he remember the exact locations of the light poles when he didn't even see them get hit?

Because memory is infallible ?

OF COURSE crime investigators think about what people would normally do and what is out of the ordinary when trying to determine the truth about a crime.

Unfortunately you are ill-equipped to determine any of that.

[Belz...]

Yes the physical damage had to have been staged.

Why ? Because your four witnesses cannot possibly be wrong ?

There are 2 potential reasons why the plane was not on the correct path:

1. A mistake.

2. The plane was deliberately off the path so if anyone saw it fly over it would be confused with a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered off" immediately after the explosion.

See ? This is why you're a crappy investigator. You can't even get your possibilities straight. You are assuming your conclusion, plain and simple, and working backwards to prove it.

In light of the cover stories and because it was so easy to find people on the street that saw the plane and described it as "white" number 2 makes the most sense.

No, it doesn't.

It's backed up with facts.

You wouldn't even know what to do with those.

Why did the whole Lloyd thing happen?
To support the lie. Plain and simple.

Again, speculation. You DO know what that is, right ? Just because YOU only see that possibility doesn't mean it's the truth.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

That's the kind of reasoning we get in movies, not in reality.

[Belz...]

Just put in the nearest black hole.

it is on its way

Why the hell did I get it down here, then ?

[Disbelief]

Ah, another vague declaration to help support your case and insinuate i "know little to nothing ".


Vague? No, I flat out said that you know little to nothing, but it was about C-130s. If you took it to mean something more than about C-130s, then you have self-esteem issues.



No. You seem to have a pretty good idea. So please do elaborate. You bypassed the other options in favor of your own. So which is it?


Well they are.


Key words: "I have no idea"

That's the point, you have no idea. You are simply relegate to theorizing about something you admitted having no idea about. Why don't you call them all and clear it up?


You have no idea about what happened at the Pentagon, but you theorize away. Since you do not release raw footage of your interviews, we actually have no idea how much leading you did of the witnesses.


Four different people about a simple right or left claim? Yes I am saying that is impossible. Especially because it didn't happen. But your accusations towards myself and the witnesses are noted.

Noted? For what? You have the nerve to accuse many people, including military people who are sworn to protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and then call me out for accusing you?



Can you actually type that with a straight face? We've been over this Disb. So which is it? Did I lead them? Or was there no accuracy due to "time degrades on memory"? All four were lead and there was no accuracy due to time degards on memory. Gotcha-you know you contradicted yourself, right? Seems like you are throwing anything up and hoping it sticks.


Release the raw footage of the interviews. Then, we can see if they are hesitant and you supply them with some "useful" information. You think leading and degraded memories are mutually exclusive, when they are far from it. In fact, the shoddier there memories, the easier it would be for someone to lead them.



What other witnesses that "do not support" me? Please specify.


I have seen the other witnesses listed for you, and you blow them all off as shills, liars or mistaken. Yet, the FOUR that support you are iron clad. Well, except when they don't support you about the plane hitting the Pentagon. Then, they are mistaken. Do you not understand the hypocrisy in that?



Well whatever, you are forced to believe 4 witnesses to the plane or Lloyd's absurd, detail changing story, that we've been questioning since day one. Are you a pilot? Do you think a pilot would be comfortable with testing 5 break away poles in 757 going 500+ mph? Do you think he would have confidence in the wings not being damaged enough to impede a successful flight away from the poles after?


Plus all the other witnesses that have been shown to you in numerous threads. Strange how you try to pit it as your 4 witnesses versus Lloyd's account and manage to forget about all the other people.

No, I am not a pilot. If I were, why would I be worried about testing a 757 hitting breakaway poles? That is not a normal occurence, so there would be no tests for that. You act like the plane hit the poles and then flew up and around, when it was on a crash course with the Pentagon. It is not like it had to fly for miles.

One last thing, you do realize that these planes are very tough. Like I said, I was at Pope AFB when an F-16 hit a C-141 on the flightline. If you research the crash, you see that the F-16 struck a C-130 that was landing, ripping off one side of the tail. You will also see that the C-130 did not crash. It actually pulled out of its landing pattern, circled back around and then landed, all while missing most of its tail. Of course, in your world that would be impossible because it doesn't seem possible.


Um, the evidence is there. We've been questioning it since day one. We have the proof now. You can speculate all you want.


You have no evidence, you have speculation. You disregard the real, physical evidence as staged. You disregard the FDR that shows the plane hit the Pentagon as inconsequential. You disregard the DNA evidence of the people on flight 77 as tainted by the chain of command. You disregard the evidence of many more eyewitnesses as lies or mistakes. In total, you have nothing.


I have 4 people who witnessed the plane drastically off the damage flight path.

So where are your witnesses who saw the pole spear that cab's windshield?

Where are your witnesses who saw the plane on the South side of the Citgo?

Where are the witnesses YOU spoke with?


As pointed out to you repeatedly, you have four witnesses many years after the fact while there are many more who dispute your account.

I will use your logic against you. No one saw the pole hit the cab's windshield, because they were distracted by the jet flying so close over head and were looking at that!

I have spoken to zero witnesses. Just because you have, means nothing. Many here have given you kudos for getting off of your butt and doing something besides googling, but it does not make you right. If I go and interview five witnesses that counter your argument, do I win?


That's when I know I am winning a debate, when i am accused on evading questions. Is that your way of making it look like I am drowning in this debate?

Did it ever occur to you I may have answered them elsewhere? I may have missed them? I was busy with the 20 other posters and their questions?

Winning by avoiding questions? Strange rules you have. I know you did not answer them elsewhere, because I have been looking for the replies. I know you were not busy with others, because you picked out a specific quote from me and skipped the rest. If you had time to quote and answer part, why not the rest?

Now, if you are such a crack investigative team, why would you NOT take the extra time to go see the actual car? It could have answered many questions, like if there was damage in the backseat where the pole might have struck.

@Bolo I really do not think that is damage to the car. I am not a photographic expert, but I have seen tens of thousands of vehicles as part of my job and that looks like a simple reflection. There is a slim possibility, but I think that is very unlikely.

[Lyte Trip]

Tell ya what Disb.

Go talk to the witnesses, show them the footage, and ask them if we misrepresented them.

If they do, we will release all the raw footage.

You are no different than a conspiracy theorist, with your wild accusations and theories. :p

[The Silver Shadow]

Just a thought, I've been reading this thread and haven't bothered posting here until now, but I was thinking that maybe Lyte, when questioning, gave vague questions to the witnesses and got vague answers in return for him to interpret the way he wanted to interpret. That's one possibility that has me thinking. We could use the raw interview footage to see if that's a possibility...

[Lyte Trip]

Just a thought, I've been reading this thread and haven't bothered posting here until now, but I was thinking that maybe Lyte, when questioning, gave vague questions to the witnesses and got vague answers in return for him to interpret the way he wanted to interpret. That's one possibility that has me thinking. We could use the raw interview footage to see if that's a possibility...

Apparently, you haven't seen the footage.

There isn't anything vague about it.

[Disbelief]

Tell ya what Disb.

Go talk to the witnesses, show them the footage, and ask them if we misrepresented them.

If they do, we will release all the raw footage.

You are no different than a conspiracy theorist, with your wild accusations and theories. :p

Typical, you avoid answering as much as possible.

See, I am not going to waste my time going to talk to your witnesses because I have a life and do not think that I am on a crusade to save the world. If you have their emails, I will have no problem emailing them and asking them some questions. Do they even know what your point was?

[HyJinX]

You are no different than a conspiracy theorist, with your wild accusations and theories. :p

Finally you admit that your accusations and theories are wild.

It took you long enough.

[aggle-rithm]

To support the lie. Plain and simple.

They fabricated the physical damage and bottom line the light poles were the most convincing physical evidence that there was a plane.

When the "missile" theories came out nobody was paying attention to the light poles.

Just the lack of debris, anomalous damage to the building etc.

But obviously a missile couldn't have knocked those poles down.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

This is propaganda gold because clearly it's pretty hard to imagine a guy like Lloyd being involved.

Lyte, since you conspiracy theorists are so fond of claiming that something that has never happened before (such as a skyscraper collapsing from fire damage) cannot possibly happen, then perhaps you can answer this question:

When, in human history, has anyone ever attempted a "false flag" operation that required such convoluted planning and obfuscation as you are claiming happened on 9/11? For instance, let's look at the Nazis' fabricated attack by Polish soldiers that served as their pretext to invade Poland:

1. Was it done in broad daylight?
2. Was it done in the middle of one of the busiest areas in the country, ensuring hundreds of witnesses that would need to be silenced?
3. Can you think of a reason why it was NOT done this way?

How is it possible that you can't fathom the pure, unadultered INSANITY of a plot that would require people to drag light poles out into a busy street to make it look as if a plane has clipped them? One where a plane is supposed to fly over the Pentagon, with the hope that the hundreds of guaranteed witnesses won't notice that it didn't actually hit it? Why in God's name would they make up a plan that is so complicated and so easy to uncover? And why is it that the only documented cases of behavior like this is IN THE MOVIES?!?

I don't think there's any way you could actually believe this nonsense and still function in society.

[Undesired Walrus]

I dont think Lyte knows what the big lie actually means.

[JamesB]

How is it possible that you can't fathom the pure, unadultered INSANITY of a plot that would require people to drag light poles out into a busy street to make it look as if a plane has clipped them? One where a plane is supposed to fly over the Pentagon, with the hope that the hundreds of guaranteed witnesses won't notice that it didn't actually hit it? Why in God's name would they make up a plan that is so complicated and so easy to uncover? And why is it that the only documented cases of behavior like this is IN THE MOVIES?!?

I don't think there's any way you could actually believe this nonsense and still function in society.

I have to disagree with you there. Nobody would even make a movie with such a stupid plot. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far.

[Disbelief]

I have to disagree with you there. Nobody would even make a movie with such a stupid plot. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far.

Especially when I don't think I have done anything to warrant suspension!!:D

[The Silver Shadow]

Apparently, you haven't seen the footage.

There isn't anything vague about it.
I'm talking about the original interviews that none of us has seen, or am I reading the thread incorrectly?

[azazal]

As a casual reader of this thread, can some one tell me what Lyte thinks caused the damage at the Pentagon? I fear if I dig too deep into this thread or some of the other's I will lose too many brain cells.

Thanks

[Belz...]

Speaking of evading questions, my own points haven't been adressed.

I wonder why.

[Disbelief]

As a casual reader of this thread, can some one tell me what Lyte thinks caused the damage at the Pentagon? I fear if I dig too deep into this thread or some of the other's I will lose too many brain cells.

Thanks

Some type of explosive that was hidden for an undetermined amount of time. The composition of said explosive is not known, but possibly two types involving conventional explosives and jet fuel to simulate a plane and the smells associated.

[azazal]

Some type of explosive that was hidden for an undetermined amount of time. The composition of said explosive is not known, but possibly two types involving conventional explosives and jet fuel to simulate a plane and the smells associated.

OK, thanks. No bunker buster bombs or cruise missiles then, darn.

[Belz...]

What about mini-nukes ?????666

[Yaters]

Lyte, it's pretty simple, if you have nothing to worry about, or hide, release the raw footage. You have zero reason not to if you have nothing to hide.

I'll use a common truther tactic: If you refuse to release the footage, I can only assume you to be a fraud and a liar.

Annoying, isn't it?

[Regnad Kcin]

How many of those 25 pilots and A & P mechanics [at PFT] are qualified to survey an accident scene to the point where they can determine whether or not an airplane of the stated size, traveling at the estimated speed, crashed? Exactly.How many in the ASCE were qualified crash scene investigators?

How many in the FBI were qualified crash scene investigators?Answering a question with a question (or two) is not answering the question.

Exactly?

2 that I know I of by the way. To answer your question.Thank you.

So your vaunted 95% of pilots and A & P mechanics at the Pilots for Truth discussion board amounts to...two people. Two whose qualifications to make a determination (by photo analysis alone, I take it?) as to whether or not a 757 crashed at the Pentagon you're certain of.

I appreciate the clarification. It always helps to be precise in these matters, don't you agree?

So regnad?

Did you have any answers on the plane "witnesses" saw flying away? Did you have any answers on the C-130's problematic interaction with this alleged AA 757?I am not familiar enough with those claims to discuss them one way or the other.

[mailman]

What about mini-nukes ?????666

They were both used in the WTC attacks!

Your use of the word "simultaneously" is misleading. Their accounts seem to agree on ONE important point. But it doesn't follow that those accounts are correct. In fact, your own strategy can be used against you, here. If you claim the witnesses who support the "official story" were TOLD what they think, then it's entirely possible that, by asking leading questions many years after the facts, you got exactly the answers you were looking for from those four people.

BTW, this is simply beautiful...absolutely and completely on the mark! :D

Regards

Mailman

[Rrramon]

Lyte, what might have caused that damage to Lloyd's windshield on the highway in front of the Pentagon if a light pole didn't?

[Regnad Kcin]

Reg, there is no blathering.

The plane was on the North side of the Citgo.

Yes, the north side between the gas station and the Pentagon, as shown to you before with the red line here: http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/citgoplanedimensions.jpg

Since the plane as on the North side and pulled up, it did not hit the building.Jumbo jets traveling at many hundreds of miles per hour don't just pull up.

Sorry.Oh but only that were an apology for all of this nonsense you've constructed.

[Lyte Trip]

Thank you.

So your vaunted 95% of pilots and A & P mechanics at the Pilots for Truth discussion board amounts to...two people. Two whose qualifications to make a determination (by photo analysis alone, I take it?) as to whether or not a 757 crashed at the Pentagon you're certain of.

No 95% of 20-30 aviation professionals.

I am sorry they are not over-confident, anonymous, "critical thinkers", on a magician's forum board.

We should have consulted you guys on the pentagon attack. Clearly you know what you are talking about.:rolleyes:

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, what might have caused that damage to Lloyd's windshield on the highway in front of the Pentagon if a light pole didn't?


A deer?

[Rrramon]

A deer?

Lyte, you are never going to going to bring the 9/11 conspirators to justice if you don't take these questions seriously.

[tsig]

Tell ya what Disb.

Go talk to the witnesses, show them the footage, and ask them if we misrepresented them.

If they do, we will release all the raw footage.

You are no different than a conspiracy theorist, with your wild accusations and theories. :p

Please cook the footage before release.

No one likes raw feet.

[Lyte Trip]

I have to disagree with you there. Nobody would even make a movie with such a stupid plot. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far.


Yes, listen to yourselves.

With people like you, they can get away with anything.

[tsig]

Apparently, you haven't seen the footage.

There isn't anything vague about it.

You might try washing those feet.

They will then be very definite.

[aggle-rithm]

Lyte, you are never going to going to bring the 9/11 conspirators to justice if you don't take these questions seriously.

Lyte is proving once again that he doesn't REALLY believe what he claims to believe. It's not possible for someone without debilitating brain injuries to buy into the ridiculous notion that some shadowy organization would come up with a plan so stupendously and clumsily convoluted that it would take twice as many resources to cover it up than to execute it in the first place.

He's doing it for attention, plain and simple.

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, you are never going to going to bring the 9/11 conspirators to justice if you don't take these questions seriously.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't think my opinion would matter much here.

What do you think caused the damage to his windshield?

[aggle-rithm]

Yes, listen to yourselves.

With people like you, they can get away with anything.

So...you believe they did something unbelievably stupid and needlessly complicated...because they can?

[T.A.M.]

April 27th, 2007 - 11 Days since I began counting from Lytes declaration to me that he had brought his evidence to "authorities", but that I had to be patient, as these investigations take time...

ELEVEN DAYS

TAM:)

[tsig]

No 95% of 20-30 aviation professionals.

I am sorry they are not over-confident, anonymous, "critical thinkers", on a magician's forum board.

We should have consulted you guys on the pentagon attack. Clearly you know what you are talking about.:rolleyes:


Get real Lyte.

That's Pdho's board.

He and his socks have a long history here.

Which one will you be wearing today?


your credibility is taking flight

[Lyte Trip]

So...you believe they did something unbelievably stupid and needlessly complicated...because they can?

No because they did.

Funny, a lot of professionals state that same thing for Hani Hanjour.

He "did something unbelievably stupid and needlessly complicated".