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

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.
 
Last edited:
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).
 
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:)
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Me said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
dcagaragemetrol.jpg

clevelandrodriguez.jpg


dcagaragemetrol.jpg
clevelandrodriguez.jpg
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

Back
Top Bottom