Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

I note with some amusemment that you appear to have ignored this Lyte, presumably on the basis that those pesky facts and real technical issues get in the way of your theory. Nice but of rounded analysis on your part, sir.

Architect said:
For your information, the foundation is the section of load bearing wall footing which carries the weight of the building down to a suitable strata, usually a firm clay. In a building such as the Pentagon one would anticipate it to be in-situ reinforced concrete, although masonry [ETA on a concrete strip] would also be possible. It will typically extend to depths of 450 to 1200mm below ground level. The excavation trench will be backfilled, either in selected as-dug material or in a suitable hardcore.

Now, if something impacted the foundation the first question would be what happened to all the earth (and other material) encapsulating it in the first place? Would it have absorbed or dissappated some or all of the impact? The second question would be the extent to which the material to the rear of the footing would have prevented severe deformation of the foundation. And of course we'd also want to look at the strength of the founds.

Now go away and do your homework properly, before pretending to be an engineer.
Click to expand...

And now I think of it, if the damage took the form of fractures rather than displaced material then it wouldn't show up on your kack-handed photographic analysis anyway.

:covereyes
 
Lyte,

While you are here, could you find out why I was banned from the Loose Change Forum? No warnings - just suddenly "gone".

What did I do wrong? My second last post was:

"You know, as someone who does not support any major conspiracy theory, I am amazed at you guys.

If you put as much effort into organising and demanding a new 9/11 review as you do in attacking Russell / each other, that new investigation would be underway right now (regardless of whether it would come up with any different conclusions).

I know some of you would consider me "the enemy", but you really should listen to some of the reasonable voices that seem to be drowned out in here - stop your bickering and work together... despite your differences."


(bottom of this thread http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5916&st=50)

Have a look over ALL the posts I made to see if anything was inflammatory or abusive.

Thanks for your time,
 
I love how an 'undamaged foundation' is proof of explosives and NOT an aircrash. How does that make any sense at all?
 
Vincent Vega said:
I love how an 'undamaged foundation' is proof of explosives and NOT an aircrash. How does that make any sense at all?
Click to expand...

If anything. An intact floor slab indicates the complete absence of any explosive powerful enough to do blast damage to the exterior wall.

Tripe Lip. wheres the blast crater?
 
Agree

A W Smith said:
If anything. An intact floor slab indicates the complete absence of any explosive powerful enough to do blast damage to the exterior wall.

Tripe Lip. wheres the blast crater?
Click to expand...

I have always argued that the size of fireball, and relative limited damage to the structure indicated a fuel explosion and not a high explosives.
 
A W Smith said:
If anything. An intact floor slab indicates the complete absence of any explosive powerful enough to do blast damage to the exterior wall.

Tripe Lip. wheres the blast crater?
Click to expand...

OMFG!!!111111 You're right! We're expected to believe that planted explosives took down the Pentagon wall, and yet look at the photos!!!! Use your common sense! Disregard all experts, credentials and corroborating evidence!

Done that? Good. Now, note that there's no visible damage to the concrete. That means there was no airliner, and no bomb. Which means...

TEH PENTOGIN IS A HOLLOWGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111
 
Lyte Trip said:
Ahhhhh!

At least one of you is semi honest.

So:

Is your point that since the generator trailer was hit that this would change the trajectory of the craft before impact?
Click to expand...
What craft?!

So ... now you're saying there WERE an aircraft there?!

And before you start backpedaling, let me remind you, that you just conceded that the generator trailer was hit.

... Yes you did.
 
Wow now Lyte says it was hit?
He has claimed for soooo long that the damage to the generator was prefabricated.

I am curious to what others think of Lyte's aviator?
 
Lyte Trip said:
You are mixing two unrelated events and not making any valid points. If the engine dug into the ground as the ASCE report claims there would be visible damage.

Huh?

Those pics are pretty close up and detailed.

Here are a few more:
[qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/foundation3.jpg[/qimg]


The foundation was undamaged.
Click to expand...

Could you please point out in this picture exactly what you are referring to when you say "foundation"?

Lyte Trip said:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Click to expand...

As a teacher of physics, It kills me that misquoting Newton's third is probably the most common error aside from the use of the word "quantum". Tell me, Lyte, could you explain exactly what is meant by "reaction"?
 
Bumping for Lyte.

Don't you run away now, ya hear me boy?

chran said:
What craft?!

So ... now you're saying there WERE an aircraft there?!

And before you start backpedaling, let me remind you, that you just conceded that the generator trailer was hit.

... Yes you did.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe Lyte was right, and TPTB have spirited him away?


Hurraaaah!!
 
Lyte Trip said:
Again.....the north side claim implicates people in this crime all the way to the top.
Click to expand...
Dreamer, you know you are a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!
I said dreamer, you're nothing but a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!
I said "Far out, - What a day, a year, a laugh it is!"
You know - well you know you had it comin' to you
Now there's not a lot I can do

© Supertramp
 
chran said:
What craft?!

So ... now you're saying there WERE an aircraft there?!

And before you start backpedaling, let me remind you, that you just conceded that the generator trailer was hit.

... Yes you did.
Click to expand...

Ummmmmm no.

The context of the question was in regards to what the person I was asking the question believes for the sake of argument.

Here is what I said:

"Is your point that since the generator trailer was hit...."

Get it? I am asking him what he believes and at the same time suggesting that if the trailer WAS it then it would likely change the trajectory of the craft.

Can I prove it? Nope. But I can suggest it as a strong possibility to consider. It certainly isn't an outrageous suggestion. It simply depends on the amount of resistance that the 40,000lb generator trailer would have.

Nowhere in that did I ever insinuate or imply for a second that I believe a plane hit the building.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Can I prove it? Nope. But I can suggest it as a strong possibility to consider. It certainly isn't an outrageous suggestion. It simply depends on the amount of resistance that the 40,000lb generator trailer would have.
Click to expand...



Actually it depends more on how strongly the bit of the aircraft that hit the generator is connected to the rest of the aircraft.

In virtually all instances with an aircraft, the segment that made the impact would break off before the remainder of the aircraft changed direction - that's because aircraft have very high momentum but are relatively weakly constructed.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Actually it depends more on how strongly the bit of the aircraft that hit the generator is connected to the rest of the aircraft.

In virtually all instances with an aircraft, the segment that made the impact would break off before the remainder of the aircraft changed direction - that's because aircraft have very high momentum but are relatively weakly constructed.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

So where is the engine?
 
Anti-sophist said:
You understand how the burden of proof works and on whom it falls, right?
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Let's frame it this way:

You are the prosecuter accusing a big boeing of causing the damage. Lyte Trip is the defense attorney representing the big boeing. The burden is on the prosecuter to prove that there was a big boeing present at the scene of the crime. The prosecution has thusfar provided very little to suggest that a big boeing was present, while defense attorney Lyte Trip has offered compelling evidence that a big boeing could not possibly have done the damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom