Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Arus808]

why are we even arguing with someone who doesn't have the experience to make claims that he is making?

remembe,r he made a film with witnesses who debunked his own film. that's more than enough to show what a tosser he is.

best to ignore and move on. nothing we say to lyte-bright is going to change his opinion.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, let's assume you have a valid hypothesis:

"They staged the damage to the Pentagon."

Now, how are you going to test that hypothesis?

How did they do it? What is the positive evidence for it?

Obviously that wouldn't be easy to accomplish now would it? That's why we had to consider all data and decided to comb the streets of Arlington to find out what the eyewitnesses saw.

Turns out they proved the plane could not have caused the physical damage.

Go figure.

 

[gumboot]

No.

It's semantics because the engine of the plane would STILL cause damage to the 1st floor as it would the foundation.

In fact it would probably cause more damage right? Obviously the first floor with a basement underneath it wouldn't be as strong as the foundation against the ground. It would probably break through.

Not necessarily... There would be no give in foundations, but there would be give in floors.

My point is, how can you make broad sweeping statements about the expected damage at The Pentagon when:

A) You know nothing about air crashes
and
B) You know nothing about the construction of The Pentagon

-Gumboot

 

[chippy]

Obviously that wouldn't be easy to accomplish now would it? That's why we had to consider all data and decided to comb the streets of Arlington to find out what the eyewitnesses saw.

Turns out they proved the plane could not have caused the physical damage.

Go figure.

If that's the case, then why are you spending your time arguing with people who obviously won't change their minds when you should be contacting the authorities and trying to get the word out about this?

 

[Pardalis]

It's semantics because the engine of the plane would STILL cause damage to the 1st floor as it would the foundation.

In fact it would probably cause more damage right? Obviously the first floor with a basement underneath it wouldn't be as strong as the foundation against the ground. It would probably break through.

Explain how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Lyte Trip]

why are we even arguing with someone who doesn't have the experience to make claims that he is making?

remembe,r he made a film with witnesses who debunked his own film. that's more than enough to show what a tosser he is.

best to ignore and move on. nothing we say to lyte-bright is going to change his opinion.

The film does not "debunk itself". It is impossible for both the north side claim and the impact to be simultaneously true.

The viewer MUST choose which to believe.

I have listed many reasons in the OP why it is much more logical to believe the north side claim over the impact.

Check them out again if you forgot.

 

[Obviousman]

Nope not me, sorry.

I don't get into any of that there.

Does anyone else have a login over there that could PM a Mod (XXIV or whatever he is called would be a choice) and try to find out why I was banned?

I'm unable to contact any of the mods because I was banned without warning.

 

[Pardalis]

Obviously that wouldn't be easy to accomplish now would it? That's why we had to consider all data and decided to comb the streets of Arlington to find out what the eyewitnesses saw.

Turns out they proved the plane could not have caused the physical damage.

Go figure.

You could ask the right people in the right fields of expertise, continue your investigation. You can't just stop at eyewitnesses testimonies.

Come on, you're the Citizen Investigation Team!

You can do it! Go out there and prove your theory.

 

[Arus808]

The film does not "debunk itself". It is impossible for both the north side claim and the impact to be simultaneously true.

and ths is why arguing with lyte-bright is a argument that will never end.

he will continue to "believe' that his film hasn't been debunked by his own witnesses. And WE all know that they did.

he doesn't want to listen to facts
he makes up his own facts to support insane theories and ideas
has NO evidence to back up his claims

and it goes round circle in the circle of argumetns you can use against him.

ignore. and move on. lyte wont change, so like Christophera, its best to ignore those who are seriously disturbed.

 

[uk_dave]

Not necessarily... There would be no give in foundations, but there would be give in floors.

My point is, how can you make broad sweeping statements about the expected damage at The Pentagon when:

A) You know nothing about air crashes
and
B) You know nothing about the construction of The Pentagon

-Gumboot

Well, he's not going to let little things like being totally ignorant about air crashes and construction to get in the way of him presenting his expert interpretation of the evidence of an air crash and structural damage.

If he did, he'd be drummed out of the 'truth' movement quicker than you could say "Russell Pickering!".

 

[Lyte Trip]

Explain how you came to this conclusion.

I'll be the first to admit that it's speculation.

But it is not speculation to suggest that there would be significant damage.

Just like it's not speculation to suggest there would be significant damage to Lloyd England's taxicab hood.

There is no need to abandon common sense.

 

[Pardalis]

ignore. and move on. lyte wont change, so like Christophera, its best to ignore those who are seriously disturbed.

It's morbid fascination at this point, you know, when a cat is playing with a half-dead mouse.

 

[Pardalis]

I'll be the first to admit that it's speculation.

But it is not speculation to suggest that there would be significant damage.

Just like it's not speculation to suggest there would be significant damage to Lloyd England's taxicab hood.

There is no need to abandon common sense.

Common sense is relative, especially when it's people like you.

OK so you got empty speculations about the Pentagon crash. Why are you bothering us for? This is a skeptics forum.

 

[Pardalis]

You know lyte, I got to give you credit for one thing. Unlike all the other twoofers, you actually got out your chair and went to Washington D.C. and talked to actual people. Even thought your methodology and reasoning are hidiously flawed, I say kudos for you.

Now why stop there? You got a lot of investigatin' to do.

 

[uk_dave]

I'll be the first to admit that it's speculation.

But it is not speculation to suggest that there would be significant damage.

Just like it's not speculation to suggest there would be significant damage to Lloyd England's taxicab hood.

There is no need to abandon common sense.

Yikes, he's mentioned 'common sense'!!111!!!!eleventy11!!

Tell us lyte, what does your 'common sense' tell you when you consider why it is that all these things about the pentagon are so OBVIOUS to you, and yet not so obvious to others?

I mean, where is your common sense when it comes to considering how this carefully planned, painfully complex plot involving flyovers, preplanted explosives, planted witnesses, planted trees, planted lightpoles and fireballs, can all fall to pieces because there's not enough damage to the ground floor slab of the pentagon building?

Doesn't your common sense tell you that maybe, just maybe, you're barking up the wrong tree on this?

How does your common sense reconcile the fact that whether caused by a plane or explosives, the building was damaged, a large section of it COLLAPSED on to the 'undamaged' floor slab, there is pictorial evidence of that collapse, and yet still the slab does not show enough damage (to you) in the pictures you present.

Doesn't it give you pause for thought?

 

[chippy]

Well lyte, apparently I'm the one you're ignoring tonight, so I'm going to bed. I would actually like you to answer my questions, but I'd also like to point out to you that your time here is a complete waste. Have you not yet figured out that this 9/11 battle you are fighting actually has absolutely NOTHING do with any single member of JREF? We are not members of the government. Even if you change a few JREFers minds on something, which is unlikely since they seem to dislike you so much, who cares? There's still a government out there who got away with a crime that you think they committed. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here? I really think you ought to ask yourself that question as sincerely as possible. I don't know why you spend so many hours debating these things with us, as if our opinions actually matter. We already have what we want. You don't. You have to go and get it. So why don't you?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Common sense is relative, especially when it's people like you.

OK so you got empty speculations about the Pentagon crash. Why are you bothering us for? This is a skeptics forum.

Dude.

We are the first to present eyewitnesses to the plane filmed on location.

No matter what your position on 9/11 if you are truly a researcher or someone concerned with this debate you would understand how groundbreaking this is.

If the witnesses said they saw the plane on the south side of the station and hit the poles we would have reported it and most likely let the Pentagon issue go.

But they didn't.

Something terribly different happened on that day.

The plane did not cause the physical damage.

That much we know for sure.

 

[Pardalis]

Dude.

Actually, judging from his avatar, Qarnos is "the Dude".

 

[Minadin]

The film does not "debunk itself". It is impossible for both the north side claim and the impact to be simultaneously true.

See, that's not completely true. If the plane was travelling at a much slower speed than it was reported as, it becomes a lot easier for these things to happen. It also becomes a lot easier for said plane to pull up and fly over the pentagon to perpetrate the illusion that you claim. I'm not saying that this is what actually happened; I'm suggesting that you're not even very good at creating false dichotomies. There's too many variables in play for you to paint the situation into a corner like that.

 

[A W Smith]

Lyte. Wheres the crater from the blast? any explosion thats going to have enough force to demolish a two foot thick wall and cut it clean off its foundation at grade is most certainly going to leave a blast crater through that slab. Where the hell is it? Your photos are now proof that a plane flew into the building.