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

[realitybites]

Planes fly over and by all day. All the time.

[qimg]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/2xtri9.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/Do_Not_Enter_grassyknollshot.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/pentagon_plane.jpg[/qimg]

I'll actually give you that one Lyte. Planes fly in the sky all the time and people usually tend not to notice them as it's a fairly commonplace event in these times.

However, people AREN'T used to seeing the Pentagon explode.

And on a day in which 2 planes had already been used to fly into buildings, your contention that one escaped from view when the surrounding public's attention was drawn to the area of the Pentagon is in fact my vote for "most laughable theory".

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'll actually give you that one Lyte. Planes fly in the sky all the time and people usually tend not to notice them as it's a fairly commonplace event in these times.

However, people AREN'T used to seeing the Pentagon explode.

And on a day in which 2 planes had already been used to fly into buildings, your contention that one escaped from view when the surrounding public's attention was drawn to the area of the Pentagon is in fact my vote for "most laughable theory".

Don't let slide the fact that he is equating "near the Pentagon" with "over the Pentagon".

 

[Lyte Trip]

Okay, how about this:
* Your pictures don't address the issue

Yes it does. Plane fly over and away from the Pentagon. People would focus on the fireball. Not the plane. People watching the whole thing would be thrown off by "the second military plane/jet over the Pentagon at the time of the explosion, that was chasing/shadowing along the same path and veered off/peeled off at the time of 'impact'"

* Your hypothesis has more holes in it than a sieve

Yeah mhmm

* You refuse to address counter-arguments
=> You're still wrong.

Just because I don't have time for every delusionoid on this site, doesn't mean I refuse anything or that I am wrong.

I am right about the plane being on the North side of the Citgo.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes it does. Plane fly over and away from the Pentagon.

Foreshortening^WP

People would focus on the fireball. Not the plane. People watching the whole thing would be thrown off by "the second military plane/jet over the Pentagon at the time of the explosion, that was chasing/shadowing along the same path and veered off/peeled off at the time of 'impact'"

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc

Yeah mhmm

Glad you agree, you're making progress.

Just because I don't have time for every delusionoid on this site, doesn't mean I refuse anything or that I am wrong.

You're right, that would be a false choice fallacy. You can be wrong, and refuse to answer.

I am right about the plane being on the North side of the Citgo.

Still not willing to recognize the reality that physical evidence trumps anecdotal evidence huh?

 

[realitybites]

Don't let slide the fact that he is equating "near the Pentagon" with "over the Pentagon".

And is apparently also under the impression that planes flying a couple hundred feet over DC at top speed are also commonplace.

What a noisy place that must be to live.... I thought the BQE was bad.

 

[DGM]

Yes it does. Plane fly over and away from the Pentagon. People would focus on the fireball. Not the plane. People watching the whole thing would be thrown off by "the second military plane/jet over the Pentagon at the time of the explosion, that was chasing/shadowing along the same path and veered off/peeled off at the time of 'impact'"

Planes flying at normal altitudes aren't noticed that much. 100' of the ground will get and keep your attention.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I'll actually give you that one Lyte. Planes fly in the sky all the time and people usually tend not to notice them as it's a fairly commonplace event in these times.

However, people AREN'T used to seeing the Pentagon explode.

And on a day in which 2 planes had already been used to fly into buildings, your contention that one escaped from view when the surrounding public's attention was drawn to the area of the Pentagon is in fact my vote for "most laughable theory".

Oh you're so coy, aren't you?

Have you even been there?

Go there and take a look at the layout of the highways and the views.

Then try and think critically. Once you pass the Pentagon in either direction on 395, you would miss it.

The plane was moving 600-800 fps.

The fireball is what would have attracted people's attention, by then the plane would have been up and out over the river.

BTW, it's not a theory. It's an alternative and according to witnesses the plane was on the North side of the Citgo and one witness had it pulling up on it's way to the Pentagon.

For the people who did catch a quick glimpse of a plane veering away, were confused by accounts of the "second plane/jet".

WTC2's strike convinced reporters and certain genuine witnesses at the impact side of the Pentagon that a plane had hit. Repeat it enough and it becomes history.

Regardless of a flyover, the plane was on the North side of the Citgo and it could not hit the light poles.

So I would have to say a large 30 ft pole spearing it's way into Lloyd England's windshield it the most laughable "theory" since the plane never hit it.

 

[JimBenArm]

Yes it does. Plane fly over and away from the Pentagon. People would focus on the fireball. Not the plane. People watching the whole thing would be thrown off by "the second military plane/jet over the Pentagon at the time of the explosion, that was chasing/shadowing along the same path and veered off/peeled off at the time of 'impact'"



Yeah mhmm



Just because I don't have time for every delusionoid on this site, doesn't mean I refuse anything or that I am wrong.

I am right about the plane being on the North side of the Citgo.

I love this. We get that you believe this. However, you are the only human that believes this nonsense. Why you continue to show up here is quite beyond me, since it seems to escape you that no one takes you seriously here. NO ONE! As in not a single person here. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
You are wasting time, Lyte. We are beyond your salvation. Try preaching your sermon somewhere else, like a Methodist seminary. They're a lot more gullible, and might actually listen to you. They might not even laugh at you, like the law enforcement people did when you presented your air-tight evidence to them. You did present it, didn't you? I'm not really sure, since I never did feel the earth shake, like you promised would happen.
Now scurry along. You have others to bother. We can't be. Sorry.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Planes flying at normal altitudes aren't noticed that much. 100' of the ground will get and keep your attention.

Have you been there? Do you know how long the whole event took? How fast the plane was travelling at?

Did you happen to interview anybody who saw it on the South side of the Citgo? Just curious.

 

[Lyte Trip]

K guys, have fun.

Got some work to do.

Toodles

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Have you been there? Do you know how long the whole event took? How fast the plane was travelling at?

Did you happen to interview anybody who saw it on the South side of the Citgo? Just curious.

Weren't you going to the authorities with your evidence, like, six weeks ago?

 

[DGM]

Have you been there?

Yes, Many times.

Do you know how long the whole event took?

I would say it was over in seconds.

How fast the plane was travelling at?

Fast and noisy.

Did you happen to interview anybody who saw it on the South side of the Citgo? Just curious.

Why would I care?

 

[realitybites]

K guys, have fun.

Got some work to do.

Toodles

By "work" do you mean taking your earth-shattering and history-altering evidence to some authority figures who could actually do something with it, or just returning to your computer to focus your attention on the latest version of The Pentacon?

Just curious.

 

[Corsair 115]

The plane was moving 600-800 fps.

Two things come to mind:

1) Jets are LOUD, really LOUD. Folks may get used to the noise of aircraft on climbs or landing approaches because in the case of the former there are often noise abatement procedures in place, and in the latter due to the fact the jet is moving relatively slowly and at low power settings.

But a jet, flying along at low altitude at a very high rate of speed, that's going to make a noise folks are going to notice.

2) A large, fast-moving metallic object is sure to catch people's eyes. Human eyes are relatively good at detecting movement within their visual field, at least in my experience.

Put these two together and any jet overflying the Pentagon would have been witnessed by a heck of a lot of people, not the paltry few from whom you've supposedly been able to get statements.

 

[uk_dave]

No No

Apparently the jet could be slow moving enough for a handful of witnesses to be absolutelywithoutashadowofadoubt certain of the path it took heading towards the pentagon, but at the same time so fast moving that it disappeared over the pentagon in the blink of an eye.

Quite something, them modern jets.

 

[R.Mackey]

Incidentally, not that Lyte Trip deserves any consideration at all -- being the fellow who feels no shame at accusing cab driver Lloyde England of being "in on it" just because his experience and his shattered taxi refute Lyte's dreams utterly...

... but consider this. Lyte's whole, carefully crafted theory, baking away in the dark recesses of his mind for over five years now, is that nobody would have been looking for the aircraft. Nobody at all. They'd all have been fixated on the explosion, so it's perfectly ordinary for the airplane to slip away, undetected.

It occurs to me just now that, on the battlefield, this happens all the time. Fighter jet swoops in, drops ordnance, big freakin' boom goes off and many people killed... does that mean the jet is safe? Nobody's going to notice it fleeing the scene?

Not only is this totally false, but the fighter jet described above would be smaller, better camouflaged, and also of comparable speed to Flight 77. And it would probably have been a far more credible threat on the way down, leaving those on the ground far more concerned about their own skins than the onlookers around the Pentagon.

Congratulations, Lyte, you've just discovered a new doctrine in aerial warfare. Either that, or you're a pathetic fraud.

Don't bother replying, Lyte.

 

[gumboot]

Lyte Trip has obviously never had a Boeing 757-200 fly over his head at 100ft at high speed. As it happens I have numerous times. It is not something one is likely to miss. Coupled with the explosion at the Pentagon, it is not something one is likely to forget. There is simply no way a Boeing 757 could have overflown the Pentagon, accompanied by a pre-set explosion, without hundreds of people noticing and reporting it.

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

Yes it does. Plane fly over and away from the Pentagon. People would focus on the fireball.

Not necessarily. And it's the large possibility that people might see the plane from the other side of the Pentagon that makes your theory ridiculous. What ? You think that someone on the other side wouldn't notice a 757 flying 50 feet over his head just because there's an explosion on the other side of the building ?

Regardless of a flyover, the plane was on the North side of the Citgo and it could not hit the light poles.

That's because you choose to believe YOUR witnesses. Some of them, anyway. Well, some of what they say, anyway.

 

[DGM]

Two things come to mind:

1) Jets are LOUD, really LOUD. Folks may get used to the noise of aircraft on climbs or landing approaches because in the case of the former there are often noise abatement procedures in place, and in the latter due to the fact the jet is moving relatively slowly and at low power settings.

But a jet, flying along at low altitude at a very high rate of speed, that's going to make a noise folks are going to notice.

2) A large, fast-moving metallic object is sure to catch people's eyes. Human eyes are relatively good at detecting movement within their visual field, at least in my experience.

Put these two together and any jet overflying the Pentagon would have been witnessed by a heck of a lot of people, not the paltry few from whom you've supposedly been able to get statements.

He also fails to take into consideration that there were people on ALL sides of the building. He thinks that the fire ball would obscure their view. How about people on the other side that had the plane go over their heads?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

LT is suggesting no one would have noticed something like this flying over: