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

[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.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

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.


[quote = "Disbelief"]but you are missing the point. They could not accomplish it without being seen.[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

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.