Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[gumboot]

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.

Er... no...

The "big boeing" is not the defendant in a legal case...

That may just be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life.

-Gumboot

 

[chippy]

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?

I'll tell you what it does do. It places the airplane at a low enough altitude such that a flyover is physically impossible. I've shown you the math, plus you don't have to use a whole lot of common sense to know that a Boeing 757 can't pull up by about 50 feet in the short distance between the generator and the building.

 

[chippy]

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.

Well allow this "prosecutor" to present you with evidence.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/1438.html

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/1652.html

 

[Lyte Trip]

Yes Lyte please show me a detailed picture of the entire Foundation in the area of impact that shows us NO DAMAGE.

So far you have show some low rez (yes the ones you have show are of poor resolution for the kind of thing we are looking for) pics of a couple of areas that appear to be near the impact zone.

TAM

You can deny it all you want but it is clear that these images show no damage to the foundation at all. Some are close-ups of exactly where the left engine would have impacted. Zero damage. Nothing whatsoever indicating a several ton 757 engine burrowed into it at 500mph+ as indicated by the official story. In fact it's so level that they were able to place the shoring there resting perfectly on that exact area holding up the damaged structure.

 

[chippy]

Lyte, the plane didn't burrow into the foundation. It plunged into the building, parallel to the ground.

 

[gumboot]

It's quite common in air crashes for engines to bounce along the ground and land some distance away. They seldom bury themselves in the ground.

And most air crashes are into soft earth, not hard concrete.

It's also worth pointing out that those concrete slabs are not the foundations. The Pentagon had two levels below ground. The foundations are well below ground level.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, the plane didn't burrow into the foundation. It plunged into the building, parallel to the ground.

According to you?

Not according to the official story or the physical damage.

They both clearly indicate that the plane had to be TILTED with the right wing up and the left wing down.

The ASCE report is conclusive that all the damage from the impact of the plane was limited to the first two floors.

This fact and the damage to the generator trailer indicate that if a plane impacted that this had to be the case.

Here is an image straight from the ASCE report showing the tilted plane with the left engine burrowing into the foundation of the building:

So:

We've had one of you in this thread that was man enough to admit that Purdue was incorrect in their analysis.........are you going to be the first to admit that the ASCE was also incorrect?

 

[chippy]

If Purdue University's simulation had the engine scraping the ground, then obviously it can't be correct as we know from the lawn damage that this did not happen. Like those Purdouchebags know anything anyway! (I'm only kidding)

I have yet to see you explain how the generator got damaged, Lyte.

 

[Lyte Trip]

It's quite common in air crashes for engines to bounce along the ground and land some distance away. They seldom bury themselves in the ground.

And most air crashes are into soft earth, not hard concrete.

It's also worth pointing out that those concrete slabs are not the foundations. The Pentagon had two levels below ground. The foundations are well below ground level.

A. Of course the plane causes damage to the ground as it would the floor of a building.

B. Whether or not there were additional floors under this one on the E ring (which I don't think you know or can prove) is irrelevant to the fact that the engine caused no damage to the concrete floor of the E ring where it would have impacted.

 

[chippy]

It wouldn't have "impacted" it. It would have "scraped" it. Right?

 

[gumboot]

B. Whether or not there were additional floors under this one on the E ring (which I don't think you know or can prove) is irrelevant to the fact that the engine caused no damage to the concrete floor of the E ring where it would have impacted.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that you can make determinations like that. You photographs do not show anything clearly, except that the building was severly damaged.

-Gumboot

 

[babazaroni]

According to you?

They both clearly indicate that the plane had to be TILTED with the right wing up and the left wing down.

Notice the wings are not parallel to each other. They angle in to the body of the plane. That means the left wing is only slightly below level while the right wing is much higher. The left engine did not need to 'burrow' into the foundation.

 

[Lyte Trip]

If Purdue University's simulation had the engine scraping the ground, then obviously it can't be correct as we know from the lawn damage that this did not happen. Like those Purdouchebags know anything anyway! (I'm only kidding)

I have yet to see you explain how the generator got damaged, Lyte.

You really haven't studied this at all have you?

In fact you didn't even bother to read the OP.

Check it out again and this time read slower.

Purdue's animation removed the pesky engines all together so they didn't have to deal with this question at all.

ASCE is the one who suggests the plane was tilted and depicts the left engine burrowing into the foundation of the building.

Bottom line if you refuse to accept the notion that the plane was tilted then once again there are anomalies in the physical damage. In particular the alleged engine damage to the generator trailer while limiting the damage to the building to the first 2 floors.

The generator is simply too high. The plane would have HAD to have been tilted.

 

[chippy]

You really haven't studied this at all have you?

In fact you didn't even bother to read the OP.

Check it out again and this time read slower.

You could have made your point quite easily without saying these things. So why did you say these things?

Purdue's animation removed the pesky engines all together so they didn't have to deal with this question at all.

ASCE is the one who suggests the plane was tilted and depicts the left engine burrowing into the foundation of the building.

Bottom line if you refuse to accept the notion that the plane was tilted then once again there are anomalies in the physical damage. In particular the alleged engine damage to the generator trailer while limiting the damage to the building to the first 2 floors.

The generator is simply too high. The plane would have HAD to have been tilted.

So what are you saying?

 

[qarnos]

If Purdue University's simulation had the engine scraping the ground, then obviously it can't be correct as we know from the lawn damage that this did not happen. Like those Purdouchebags know anything anyway! (I'm only kidding)

I have yet to see you explain how the generator got damaged, Lyte.

You know, if the generator hadn't been damaged, CTs would use that as proof of no planes at The Pentagon.

You seriously expect me to believe a 757 could do all that, yet this generator remains perfectly intact?!?!

 

[Lyte Trip]

You could have made your point quite easily without saying these things. So why did you say these things?



So what are you saying?

It's cool if you aren't good at English bro.

What I am saying is that the ASCE report claims the plane was tilted to account for the more obvious physical damage outside while less obvious contradictions like the lack of damage to the foundation and the fact that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to have caused any of the damage are ignored.

 

[gumboot]

It's cool if you aren't good at English bro.

What I am saying is that the ASCE report claims the plane was tilted to account for the more obvious physical damage outside while less obvious contradictions like the lack of damage to the foundation and the fact that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to have caused any of the damage are ignored.

Can you please stop calling it "foundations"? The foundations were underground.

You're embarassing yourself.

 

[Lyte Trip]

You know, if the generator hadn't been damaged, CTs would use that as proof of no planes at The Pentagon.

You seriously expect me to believe a 757 could do all that, yet this generator remains perfectly intact?!?!

That's a lame hypothetical generalization.

I brought back proof that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

I am not making this up.

Now we know why the damage is so cookie cutter and anomalous and there was so little debris.

The eyewitnesses have definitively confirmed the suspicions.

 

[chippy]

It's cool if you aren't good at English bro.

What are you talking about?

What I am saying is that the ASCE report claims the plane was tilted to account for the more obvious physical damage outside while less obvious contradictions like the lack of damage to the foundation and the fact that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to have caused any of the damage are ignored.

So it's impossible for the plane to have caused any damage to the generator outside?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Can you please stop calling it "foundations"? The foundations were underground.

You're embarassing yourself.

You do not know nor can you prove there was a basement in the E ring.