[Moderated] So What Would You Think If This Were True?

[Lyte Trip]

Here is what I acknowledge, S4S:

If (get that "If"), it is proven to me (which means witnesses with signed testimony, FDR data verified independently by a trusted source proving a north side flight path), than what I would acknowledge is that there is evidence that the official story got the flight path wrong for the crash of AA77.

John with red socks versus John with green socks, and nothing more.

TAM

This is the post I initially wanted to respond to but I had to get enough posts to be able to post images first. So here is my reply to TAM:




Which simply demonstrates that you just don't get it.

The ASCE report outlines the damage to the inside of the building in detail.

Each damaged column is documented.

There is zero room for error on the part of the official story in regards to the flight path.

The physical damage starts with the light poles; but leading all the way up to the odd C ring exit hole......it can only have been created from a plane impacting the building at a sharp angle coming from the southwest.

All of these images are from the ASCE report.

John's socks can only be red.

If they are any other color he has been busted.

 

[Lyte Trip]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/Citgo.jpg

That was a joke right?

It doesn't even hit the pentagon let alone the light poles!

 

[JFM]

So a plane hitting the pentagon is not in dispute, but the path the plane took to hit the pentagon is the thing the woowoos are teasing us about being able to prove different to the official version?

And the woowoos would have us believe that their eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon but not hitting the light poles means the light poles must have been staged?

And if the lightpoles were staged it is because the perps knew the plane couldn't take that path, otherwise they would have left the lightpoles alone and allowed them to be knocked down by the plane in accordance with the story they want the world to believe.

So the fact that a plane hit the pentagon, but a few eyewitnesses are now willing to testify 5 years later that the plane they saw passed north of the citgo station and therefore could not have hit the lightpoles, means the conspirators knew their plane wasn't going to hit the lightpoles but they decided to knock them down anyway just to....ummmmmm ....... ermmmmm just to make themselves look silly by claiming a different path for the plane than the woowoo's witnesses will claim and ummmmmm.... ermmmmm... create a whole load of work for themselves on the day by knocking down poles which didn't need to be knocked down because the woowoo witnesses still confirm that a plane hit the pentagon.

The only logical reason for faking the light poles would be if there was no plane. So does mr lytetrip and mr skeptic say a plane or a missile hit the pentagon?

AND, they had to shove one of these poles through Mr Englands cab windshield, without anyone noticing.

 

[Gravy]

Sorry but this thread is about the final trajectory of the craft and whether or not it was to the north or south of the citgo station.

Stay on topic please.

Father McGraw makes no claims as to knowing anything about what specific direction or angle the plane approached from.

He also claims he didn't see the light poles hit.

hmmmmmmm.

Please answer the question: Does Father McGraw say he believes the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon? Yes or no?

How about these people, Lyte? How many did you speak with?

Steve Riskus: I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first.... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles in its way... I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane. I clearly saw the "AA" logo with the eagle in the middle... I don't really remember the engine configuration, but it did have those turbine engines on the wing... and yes, it did impact the Pentagon... There was none of this hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... There is no doubt about that... When I got to work I checked it out." http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/s11-media/et7.jpg

Mark Bright: Defense Protective Service officers were the first on the scene of the terrorist attack. One, Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the building. He had been manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance to the building. "I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/6_39/local_news/10797-1.html

Mike Walter: "...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there."
... a cruise missile with wings? "I said that as a metaphor. To me it was like a missile was fired at a building. It exploded as you'd imagine a missile to explode. ... It was an American Airlines jet. And I watched it go into the building. I saw the big 'AA' on the side.." http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/492/walter2.ram

Rodney Washington: "It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening," Washington said. The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it. It "landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon," Washington said. "There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded." Washington speculated that it could have been worse: "If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court." http://www.boston.com/news/packages...r_assault_on_Pentagon_orderly_response+.shtml

Unnamed Navy admiral: "It was a good size jet aircraft. I saw it clip a light pole but keep coming and then slam into the front of the building." Houston Chronicle (Lexis-Nexis - Michael Hedges)


Lee Evey: Actually, there's considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It's just not very visible. When you get up close -- actually, one of my people happened to be walking on this sidewalk and was right about here as the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in. He happened to hear this terrible noise behind him, looked back, and he actually -- he's a Vietnam veteran -- jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually -- he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low. On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off. There are other parts of the plane that are scattered about outside the building. None of those parts are very large, however. http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0915/DoD.html

I was right underneath the plane, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." - (Washington Post, September 11, 2001) -
http:// www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

Tom Hovis: Nevertheless, the aircarft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building. http://www.beanerbanner.com/a_father____.htm

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550486,00.html

Richard Benedetto, a USA TODAY reporter, was on his way to work, driving on the Highway parrallel to the Pentagon : " It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.(...) I didn't see the impact. (...) The sound itself sounded more like a thud rather than a bomb (...) rather than a loud bomb explosion it sounded muffled, heavy, very deep. I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in normal flying mode but heading straight down.It was straight. The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a ... the tail of a lamp post. (Video) http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/491/Benedetto2.ram

Kat Gaines, on her way to a part-time job at Reagan National Airport heading south on Route 110, in front of the Pentagon parking lots: Her commute to the airport took her south on Route 110, in front of the parking lots of the Pentagon. As she approached the parking lots, she saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. She then heard the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon. http://www.fccc.org/News/valor.htm

D.S. Khavkin: First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke." http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/mirror/witness_d-s-khavkin.htm

We will prove that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo which in turn proves it couldn't have hit the poles.

We will also demonstrate how the evidence that the poles were hit is beyond dubious.

This will be sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the light poles therefore rest of the physical damage was staged.

Go right ahead. Tell Steve Riskus that he's lying.

You'll be addressing all eyewitness reports, of course, right, Lyte? And all the evidence collected at the scene?

Right?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That was a joke right?

It doesn't even hit the pentagon let alone the light poles!

It is an overhead map with the streets highlighted, and the Citgo noted. There is not additional information on there.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Okay.

That wasnt really what I was getting at. I am wondering how far to the north the plane was seen because the possibility the witness could be in error. The error would only have to be about 75 meters. That is why I asked who saw nothing but belly and where they were.

Growing up, my family lived really close to an airport, more or less in line with the runway. Before GE, I wouldve sworn we were directly on the runways centerline, right under the landing aircrafts flightpath. Now that I look at our old house in GE, our house is about 80 meters to the West of the centerline.....
I guess I'll just wait to see what you have.

There is no room for any ambiguity whatsoever in their claim.

The plane was low enough and their vantage point is such that it is impossible for them to be mistaken. They were the only witnesses that had such a perfect vantage point since they were actually at the station



This is easily demonstrated to any reasonable persons expectations.

 

[uk_dave]

It is an overhead map with the streets highlighted, and the Citgo noted. There is not additional information on there.

No but it does show how easy it is for someone such as lyte trip to imagine that any line on an aerial photo is actually someone's interpretation of a flight path.

One suspects that we are dealing here with someone who needs to take a vacation.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There is no room for any ambiguity whatsoever in their claim.

The plane was low enough and their vantage point is such that it is impossible for them to be mistaken. They were the only witnesses that had such a perfect vantage point since they were actually at the station



This is easily demonstrated to any reasonable persons expectations.

Since you appear to not be grasping how tenuous witness testimony is:

Last year, with Christopher Chabris, also at Harvard, Simons showed people a videotape of a basketball game and asked them to count the passes made by one or other team. After about 45 seconds, a man dressed in a gorilla suit walked slowly across the scene, passing between the players. Although he was visible for five seconds, 40 per cent of the viewers failed to notice him. When the tape was played again, and they were asked simply to watch it, they saw him easily. Not surprisingly, some found it hard to believe it was the same tape.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/D/200003073.html

 

[LashL]

Fair question.

Because I don't have the technical expertise nor the equipment to compile the information appropriately.

That is lined up.

You don't have the "technical expertise" nor the "equipment" to put forward a simple explanation or precis of the earth shattering evidence that you claim to have?

How much effort would it take to simply describe it in your own words on the internet forums that you are spending your time on? It seems to me that it would take very little effort, and it seems to me that if you have the time to hang around on the internet rather than working on acquiring or working on the "technical expertise" you cited above, well, then you should have enough time to explain and describe your alleged earth shattering evidence instead of just dancing all around it.

Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Lyte Trip: No disrespect intended, but why are you wasting your valuable time here trying to convince skeptics of your unsupported views instead of working on presenting the earth shattering evidence that you claim to have?


I mean, come on, if you have - as you claim - earth shattering evidence that will blow the whole "conspiracy" wide open, why on earth are you here posting banalities instead of working on presenting the earth shattering evidence that you and your fellow CTers claim to have?

JAQ, of course.
Fair question.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Please answer the question: Does Father McGraw say he believes the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon? Yes or no?

How about these people, Lyte? How many did you speak with?

This is all you could dig up?

The only one that specifically claims he "saw" the poles hit is anonymous!

I guarantee you will barely find any that specifically say they saw the poles hit.

But what you are forgetting.......if I am right and the plane flew on the north side of the station.....the poles certainly weren't hit and 9/11 was therefore an inside job.

And therefore there would be some planted witnesses.

Since you have provided ONE anonymous witness that claims he actually saw the pole being hit that is clearly not too large of a number to be in on the conspiracy.

 

[LashL]

We will prove that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo which in turn proves it couldn't have hit the poles.

Which plane?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Actually.....

Even the anonymous dude who claims he saw them hit doesn't have to be in on it.

He may have been simply deducing it like father mcgraw and felt confident enough to claim he saw it in order to make himself seem more important.

 

[uk_dave]

Which plane?

The plane which was supposed to fly the other side of the station...oh no wait, no it wasn't or there would not have been any reason to knock over the poles beforehand.......

This is a really surreal theory.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Which plane?

The large twin engine commercial airliner that flew low over arlington towards the pentagon on 9/11.

 

[apathoid]

There is no room for any ambiguity whatsoever in their claim.

Why not? Do you have a device that is capable of extracting a witnesses memory and coverting it to video? Its not possible that they are even slightly mistaken?

The plane was low enough and their vantage point is such that it is impossible for them to be mistaken. They were the only witnesses that had such a perfect vantage point since they were actually at the station

Okay. Can you please tell me, in summary, where exactly this person was(dont say the Citgo. I want to know whether they were inside, outside, under the shelter, the north of the shelter, etc..etc..) and exactly what they recall seeing? Provide the quote if possible.

 

[Dog Town]

The only one that specifically claims he "saw" the poles hit is anonymous!

WTF? Read those again! You missed quite a few more. Also, these are not people being questioned! I am sure more, if posed the question, could answer yes to the poles! This is absurd!

 

[uk_dave]

Actually.....

Even the anonymous dude who claims he saw them hit doesn't have to be in on it.

He may have been simply deducing it like father mcgraw and felt confident enough to claim he saw it in order to make himself seem more important.

ahhhhh some critical thinking skills emerge from the over active imagination of a CT'er.

Now, take a deep breath and apply those same skills to your own witness testimony......

 

[Lyte Trip]

You don't have the "technical expertise" nor the "equipment" to put forward a simple explanation or precis of the earth shattering evidence that you claim to have?

How much effort would it take to simply describe it in your own words on the internet forums that you are spending your time on? It seems to me that it would take very little effort, and it seems to me that if you have the time to hang around on the internet rather than working on acquiring or working on the "technical expertise" you cited above, well, then you should have enough time to explain and describe your alleged earth shattering evidence instead of just dancing all around it.

I'm not the one that will convince you.

The testimony will.

I have been working on it every day and will present it as soon as possible.

 

[LashL]

The large twin engine commercial airliner that flew low over arlington towards the pentagon on 9/11.

Flight 77 or some other plane? Please be specific.

 

[JFM]

Surely you don't need any of this lightpole nonesense, as you have the attack authorisation signed by Bush himself.

I was so happy that you made it home safely the other day as you were obviously in fear for your life, was this due to having said article? Is it in more than triplicate now? I'd get it to as many as possible incase I'm "suicided".(hate that word)

Hey, why not post it here Lyte? We'll look after a copy for you.