Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Lyte Trip]

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?

No because this is clearly WAY less obvious physical evidence.

That's why nobody has said anything about it. Merc was the first to point it out.

Plus we have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station so it couldn't have caused the physical damage anyway.

 

[gumboot]

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

What about all the media organisations that interviewed eyewitnesses on site on the day? I suspect their work trumps yours.

Such a cute little mouse...

-Gumboot

 

[uk_dave]

No because this is clearly WAY less obvious physical evidence.

That's why nobody has said anything about it. Merc was the first to point it out.

Plus we have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station so it couldn't have caused the physical damage anyway.

Lyte, the floor slab apparently remained undamaged after an explosion and after a collapse.

Why is that?

 

[Lyte Trip]

What about all the media organisations that interviewed eyewitnesses on site on the day? I suspect their work trumps yours.

Such a cute little mouse...

-Gumboot

That's not the same.

I meant in any subsequent study after the fact.

 

[Minadin]

You don't think that the same-day interviews were "after the fact"? Really?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, the floor slab apparently remained undamaged after an explosion and after a collapse.

Why is that?

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.

Apparently they didn't plant the explosives in the floor.

 

[gumboot]

That's not the same.

I agree, it's not the same. You went there years after the fact, with an agenda, carefully selected witnesses that supported your claims, and you STILL failed miserably.

In contrast the media on the day had no agenda other that reporting the truth, the memories were fresh in the eyewitnesses minds, and people were chosen at random.

-Gumboot

 

[Pardalis]

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.

THAT'S your next step! That's what you got to prove.

Now go investigatin'!

 

[uk_dave]

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.

Apparently they didn't plant the explosives in the floor.

What about the collapse of the structure?

What about the internal damage? Were your explosives so focused that they could only cause damage parallel to the ground.....a bit like flying debris?

Explain to us how all this damage was caused to the structure, enough to cause it to collapse, and yet the floor slab remained 'undamaged'.

 

[Lyte Trip]

You don't think that the same-day interviews were "after the fact"? Really?

See?? You guys are obsessed with semantics!

It's so annoying.

OTHER THAN INTERVIEWS ON THAT DAY........

We are the first to present witness accounts filmed on location.


Sheesh.

And we are definitely the first to present witnesses at the citgo station on location or at all.

Bottom line it's groundbreaking and important information and would be compelling to any honest unbiased person that is interested in first hand accounts of what happened.

 

[A W Smith]

Explosives and/or incendiary devices were planted in strategic areas so as to simulate the trajectory of the plane.

Apparently they didn't plant the explosives in the floor.

Wrong. Any blast from an explosive thats going to displace those columns to the north as you pointed out, is going to cause a floor crater. it is impossible for such a blast wave to do otherwise.

 

[Go_]

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.

Why is this so when after you 'combed the streets of Arlington,' the two most credible witnesses in your video (and the only two of the four with a view of the Pentagon at the time of impact) told you directly in unambiguous language that they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon?

Lagasse specifically stated in your presence that this was a point beyond any reasonable dispute. He, like other witnesses, mentioned that it looked as if the Pentagon had 'swallowed' the plane. This strongly implies that the plane disappeared from his view before the fireball erupted. How is it possible that the plane disappeared from his view before the fireball erupted if the plane flew over the building?

How is it possible that the plane never rose above the roof of the building before it disappeared from Lagasse's view when Lagasse was standing only a few hundred feet away?

For a plane to clear the Pentagon from Lagasse's viewpoint, the plane would have to appear to be above the Pentagon even if only slightly. This undoubtedly was never the case.

Why didn't you ask him to try to reconcile those observations with your theory? Why didn't you do so in his presence?

 

[Pardalis]

Welcome Go, I mean stay... but welcome...

 

[A W Smith]

No because this is clearly WAY less obvious physical evidence.

That's why nobody has said anything about it. Merc was the first to point it out.

Plus we have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station so it couldn't have caused the physical damage anyway.

You have proven nothing. Thats hand waving and denial

 

[Earl The Tall]

It was probably partially prefabricated and then finished off with explosives.

Perhaps it was even moved in advance or simply blown in that direction.

That made me almost do a spit take with my Diet Dr. Pepper.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I agree, it's not the same. You went there years after the fact, with an agenda, carefully selected witnesses that supported your claims, and you STILL failed miserably.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We contacted as many witnesses as we could. We concentrated on the citgo station because the manager told us about Robert Turcios.

So we simply set out to confirm or refute his north side claim.

Well it got confirmed.

Beyond our wildest imaginations.

It's not our fault. It's simply what the witnesses saw.

 

[uk_dave]

See?? You guys are obsessed with semantics!

It's so annoying.

That is kinda ironic, when 90% of the 911 CT is based on the 'truthers' interpretation of what someone else has said.

 

[Minadin]

Please, Lyte (may I call you Lyte?)

I am tempted to believe that you are either:

- A pro-truther disinfo agent intending to make us feel overconfident by proposing these absurd theories, distracting us from debunking the "real" 9/11 research that definitively proves that it is an inside job.

- A government shill who is trying to make the conspiracy theorists look ridiculous on purpose, by proposing such easily refutable claims, without any hard evidence.

Of course, I don't believe either of these things, yet. I'm trying to keep an open mind and look at just the facts. But I would love to hear your response to either.

 

[Go_]

Thank you, Pardalis. Good to be here among so many of my fellow skeptics.

What are the chances of Lyte Trip answering any of my questions?

And has he said anything about when the long-delayed, but much anticipated "The Pentacon: Researchers' Edition" is coming out?

I've got my popcorn ready.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Why is this so when after you 'combed the streets of Arlington,' the two most credible witnesses in your video (and the only two of the four with a view of the Pentagon at the time of impact) told you directly in unambiguous language that they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon?

Lagasse specifically stated in your presence that this was a point beyond any reasonable dispute. He, like other witnesses, mentioned that it looked as if the Pentagon had 'swallowed' the plane. This strongly implies that the plane disappeared from his view before the fireball erupted. How is it possible that the plane disappeared from his view before the fireball erupted if the plane flew over the building?

How is it possible that the plane never rose above the roof of the building before it disappeared from Lagasse's view when Lagasse was standing only a few hundred feet away?

For a plane to clear the Pentagon from Lagasse's viewpoint, the plane would have to appear to be above the Pentagon even if only slightly. This undoubtedly was never the case.

Why didn't you ask him to try to reconcile those observations with your theory? Why didn't you do so in his presence?

It is impossible for both the north side claim and the impact claim to be simulaneously true.

You are forced as the viewer to choose one over the other.

Whenever analyzing eyewitness testimony it is up to you (let's say "the jury" for the sake of discussion) to determine if the witness is remembering accurately, remembering inaccurately, deducing, embellishing, or lying.

You have to make this determination with this testimony in regards to the north side claim vs the impact claim.

I listed a bunch of reasons in the original post of this thread why it is infinitely more logical to believe they are remembering accurately in regards to the north side claim over the impact. Please review them again.