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

Again, why are you disparaging a military man with your crappy accusations? Did you interview him? Would you tell him to his face that he is complicit in the crime you purported happened? I asked you before and I will ask again, do you understand what it means "... to protect from all threats, both foreign and domestic?"
Click to expand...

I didn't disparage anyone.

His account is impossible. Period.

Prove how it isn't or stop with your inane comments.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I didn't disparage anyone.

His account is impossible. Period.

Prove how it isn't or stop with your inane comments.
Click to expand...

Once again, your theory so you prove it. Until then, I will continue to say you disparage military people like the C-130 pilot and the others that Gravy brought up.
 
Lyte Trip said:
No because they did.
Click to expand...

as pointed out this is circular reasoning Lyte.
You believe that they did it because they did it because you believe they did it.

Funny, a lot of professionals state that same thing for Hani Hanjour.

He "did something unbelievably stupid and needlessly complicated".
Click to expand...

By this Lyte means the now well and truly debunked notion that the 2.5 minute turn into the building was too complicated for Hanjour even though this is barely more than a standard turn and a stupid thing to do since , according to the professional pilots on P4T, it would be so much easier and better for hanjour to have shoved the column forward when he first saw the Pentagon and attempted a very steep dive at the Pentagon. Somehow these professionals believe that would be the way to go despite this a large aircraft being much harder to control in such a dive than in a turning, 3-4 degree desent.

So, Lyte , shilling for P4T now are you?
 
Disbelief said:
Once again, your theory so you prove it. Until then, I will continue to say you disparage military people like the C-130 pilot and the others that Gravy brought up.
Click to expand...


Yes, be like Gravy. Follow his lead.

It's not a theory. Have you researched the C-130 pilots account? Have you compared it to the NTSB flight path. I suggest you do that before you comment any further.

Research it like Gravy would.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Clearly you don't know the official flight path or the topography of the area.
Click to expand...

Again: Assuming you were on a mission to crash a plane into a building at all costs, and everyone involved, including yourself, is expendible, then how would YOU have done it?
 
jaydeehess said:
as pointed out this is circular reasoning Lyte.
You believe that they did it because they did it because you believe they did it.

By this Lyte means the now well and truly debunked notion that the 2.5 minute turn into the building was too complicated for Hanjour even though this is barely more than a standard turn and a stupid thing to do since , according to the professional pilots on P4T, it would be so much easier and better for hanjour to have shoved the column forward when he first saw the Pentagon and attempted a very steep dive at the Pentagon. Somehow these professionals believe that would be the way to go despite this a large aircraft being much harder to control in such a dive than in a turning, 3-4 degree desent.

So, Lyte , shilling for P4T now are you?
Click to expand...


You people look so silly.

Can't you ever discuss things like mature indivduals?

Jaydee,

I am not referring to the turn. Although, it's just silly to propose Hani controlled that craft. i am refering to the "pilot" flying on the official damage path, it is like threading the needle.

Jaydee, are you a pilot? Have bothered to try and speak with the pilots at PFT? Are you really that ignorant, that you base everything on your encounters with or impressions of Rob Balsamo?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Again: Assuming you were on a mission to crash a plane into a building at all costs, and everyone involved, including yourself, is expendible, then how would YOU have done it?
Click to expand...

Immediately and from the top, diving into the middle. Or directly into the front mall entrance where all the bigwigs are.

I wouldn't pass the pentagon, when all i had to do is make a left. Execute a spiral, not knowing if I would be off course or more importantly if fighters were about to blow me out of the sky.
 
Lyte, are you ever going to explain to me how someone who believes that the plane hit the Petagon can also believe that the fireball occured well enough in advance of the impact so as to cause the view of the impact to be obscured by the fireball that resulted from the impact?

Put another way, how can a person who believes that the impact occured at the same time as or shortly after the fireball also believe that the fireball occured BEFORE the impact?
 
Lyte Trip said:
The witnesses in the PentaCon are not a "theory" my friend.

The C-130 pilot's account being impossible is not a "theory".
Click to expand...


A witness is just somebody who saw something. Does not count till you're under oath.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes, be like Gravy. Follow his lead.

It's not a theory. Have you researched the C-130 pilots account? Have you compared it to the NTSB flight path. I suggest you do that before you comment any further.

Research it like Gravy would.
Click to expand...

I just pointed out that Gravy listed witnesses for you and some accounts and you dismissed them out of hand as lying.

Anyway, where is it that you explain why the pilot is lying? I can't seem to find it
 
jaydeehess said:
Put another way, how can a person who believes that the impact occured at the same time as or shortly after the fireball also believe that the fireball occured BEFORE the impact?
Click to expand...


I don't know what you are getting at.

"It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something."

-Joe Harrington
 
Lyte Trip said:
Immediately and from the top, diving into the middle. Or directly into the front mall entrance where all the bigwigs are.

I wouldn't pass the pentagon, when all i had to do is make a left. Execute a spiral, not knowing if I would be off course or more importantly if fighters were about to blow me out of the sky.
Click to expand...

What you would or would not do does not matter. Reality is.

Or maybe you imagine yourself in that jet just brining that honking big thing around and into the ground.

Wash hands.
 
Actually, declaring all witnesses who counter what you believe as lying or mistaken even if they are in the majority, and declaring all physical evidence that supports the opposing viewpoint as planted is a pretty good way to arrange to always win a debate, at least in your mind.

They must teach that in the more advanced investigator schools.
 
twinstead said:
Actually, declaring all witnesses who counter what you believe as lying or mistaken even if they are in the majority, and declaring all physical evidence that supports the opposing viewpoint as planted is a pretty good way to arrange to always win a debate, at least in your mind.

They must teach that in the more advanced investigator schools.
Click to expand...

yeah and just saying witnesses were mistaken because it 5 yrs later is also a good way to win a debate....at least in your mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom