Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Lyte Trip]

Actually those reasons are in the original post of this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78097

 

[A W Smith]

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.

Ive reviewed it and you are right in that it is impossible for both the north side "claim" (not proof you said claim) and the impact to be true. Therefore. Because of a preponderance of evidence. The debris field including the lamp posts. the DNA evidence. the plane wreckage. the flight data recorder evidence. the radar evidence from the local ATC. the passenger bodies one of them still attached to their seat in the pentagon. The "claim" of a north side flight by your witnesses cannot in any possibility be true.

 

[uk_dave]

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.

Yep, in particular Lagasse, who couldn't remember which pump he was at, couldn't place the light poles and taxi cab properly to correspond with where he remembered he had been, but could remember seeing the plane hit the pentagon.

Lyte, consider this:

You're going about your everyday business, not expecting anything weird to happen, and maybe not really paying much attention to what you are doing. We all use our autopilot sometimes, don't we?

How many times have you driven the same route to work and then when you got there thought to yourself "I don't actually remember much about that journey"? Maybe you had other things on your mind, or were listening to a cd or something.

But then when an amazing, out of the ordinary event occurs, suddenly you are overloaded with a mass of new information.

So, people are going about their normal day, and suddenly, without any warning, they are seeing a bloody great passenger plane flying extremely low past/over them.

The enormity of this event causes them to momentarily enter a state of shock. They are seeing something which you just don't see normally.

But then that plane crashes into a building.

The final scene of this unexpected shocking event is a massive crash into a building.

So, are you going to use your common sense to say that everything leading up to the crash is clearer in the minds of the witnesses than the crash itself?

They were taken by surprise. They don't even know for certain that they were where they thought they were.

But the finality of the crash is seared into their memories.

Did you ever consider it in those terms?

 

[Go_]

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

No, not at all. In fact, it's not only not impossible, but it is highly probable that the plane would have crashed into the Pentagon if you believe Lagasse's account.

If you'll remember from your interview with Lagasse he stated that the plane was only about 100 to 150 feet above ground level when the plane was at the Citgo station. [This, BTW, contradicts the claim by PFT that the plane was 300 feet over the street light poles by the time it got anywhere close to them, but that's a separate issue.]

Given the altitude which Lagasse attributes to the plane and given the angle of descent of the plane it is much more likely that the plane would have crashed into the Pentagon than it is that the plane would have suddenly pulled up to fly over the Pentagon with that rather dramatic maneuver going unnoticed.

This makes it very likely that the plane hit the Pentagon just as Lagasse told you it did.

Therefore, since we've established that the plane hit the Pentagon, now the only anomalies we have to account for are the damage pattern reported inside the Pentagon and the location of the downed light poles. Since the flight path given by the NTSB for flight 77 perfectly coincides with these events, the most likely explanation for them is that the plane came in on that flight path, which in turn means that either the location of the plane that Lagasse gave you can be reconciled with this flight path or that Lagasse is simply mistaken.

Might Lagasse be mistaken in regard to the location at which he first places the plane?

In your interview with Lagasse, he mentions something about the plane being almost past him before he spotted it. I think he mentioned something about the Doppler effect to account for this. Do you think that it's possible that he never actually saw the plane until it was fully past him and that he unconsciously mentally reconstructed the location from which, in his mind, the plane had to be coming? Remember, this all took place in two seconds or less.

I'm not saying this IS what happened. I'm offering this only as one of many possibilities which might explain the discrepancy.

To digress for a second, one of the things I don't like about any of the conspiracy theories that I've heard, including yours (no offense), is the 'certainty' with which most of these theories claim that certain events had to transpire. Well, there is no certainty when we are dealing with human perception. It's perfectly feasible that any of our perceptions might be mistaken at any time. It is the whole body of evidence which must be accounted for, not particular remembrances.

Whenever analyzing eyewitnesses 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.

True, but ALL the facts have to be taken into consideration.

So what are the facts in our case here?

A) We have five light poles knocked from their pedestals with the tops severed which just happen to perfectly coincide with the flight path attributed to a plane by the world's finest airliner crash investigators.

B) We have several witnesses who state unambiguously that they saw the plane hit the light poles.

C) We have a report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers in which the damage pattern found inside the Pentagon accurately matches the damage pattern that should be expected from a 757's impacting the Pentagon on the flight path given by the NTSB.

D) And we have your interviews in which witnesses state, in perfect harmony with the above, that they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon.

The only wildcard here, unless the location attributed to the plane by your witnesses can be reconciled with the NTSB-determined flight path, is why your interviewees would place the plane in a different location than the location in which it almost certainly was.

There are, however, explanations even for this as I outlined above.

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.

No need to review them, I remember them perfectly; but I find them to be more convenient than persuasive.

 

[JimBenArm]

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.

So why did you abandon common sense?

 

[JimBenArm]

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.

Chances of him answering? Close to zero. He just rambles about how his eyewitness testimony is airtight, even after his own witnesses point the holes out to him.
In other words, he's got serious mental problems. Can't be reasoned with, won't accept anything that doesn't validate his view, and just drones on and on.

 

[a_unique_person]

Chances of him answering? Close to zero. He just rambles about how his eyewitness testimony is airtight, even after his own witnesses point the holes out to him.
In other words, he's got serious mental problems. Can't be reasoned with, won't accept anything that doesn't validate his view, and just drones on and on.

Hmmm, sounds like just about everyone in the politics forum.

 

[I Am He]

Citco Witnesses

LYte

How can you keep using those two eyewitnesses to prove your case when you keep calling them liars?? Are they telling the truth or not?? You can't have it both ways. Either their telling the truth or they are not. And, don't give me that crap that they're only telling half truths.

I see you're playing stupid again, but this time you won.

I Am He

 

[Architect]

You know, Lyte, if I were going to try and propose an alternative theory I would investigate it thoroughly. I would ensure that I could show that I had proposed a detailed hypothesis, propduced sufficient technical evidence to support this claim, and (this is the key) could do so to a level of understanding at least equivalent to that of the "official" account.

But you don't do that, do you? There are huge gaping holes in your hypothesis. Let's look at some basic examples:

1. You didn't appear to know whether the Pentagon had a basement and if so, the construction of the ground (that's first to you Yanks) floor slab.

2. You don't actually know the difference between a foundation, footing, ground bearing (or raft) slab, and a floor slab. This is rather important when you claim that damage to same is indicative (or otherwise) of a certain theory.

3. You can't account for the protection provided to the substructure by the solum, nor can you apaprently explain to us what damage/deformation patterns we should expect.

And that's before I move away from "architectural" concerns and into wider issues about the plane path.

Face it, mate. You ain't got what it takes.

 

[JimBenArm]

Hmmm, sounds like just about everyone in the politics forum.

That's why I stay here. Less looniness.

 

[uk_dave]

2. You don't actually know the difference between a foundation, footing, ground bearing (or raft) slab, and a floor slab. This is rather important when you claim that damage to same is indicative (or otherwise) of a certain theory.

Apparently that is a matter of 'semantics'.

Lyte only used 'foundation' to avoid having to say "the big grey thingy at the bottom of the picture" and therefore leave himself open to accusations of ignorance.

You know how important it is for 'truthers' to appear to know what they are talking about.

 

[Architect]

Apparently that is a matter of 'semantics'.

Lyte only used 'foundation' to avoid having to say "the big grey thingy at the bottom of the picture" and therefore leave himself open to accusations of ignorance.

You know how important it is for 'truthers' to appear to know what they are talking about.

I was going to ask him whether it was simply that the screed had been damaged, as we might expect, and scraped back to the slab as part of the clean up. But that would probably just be semantics too, eh?

 

[T.A.M.]

Yawn. Yawn. Yawn.

Haven't you gone to the proper media and authorities with this yet. Choose which ones you want to give it to, and just do it already. You are boring beyond belief now. You are not convincing anyone here, so go try your luck with someone else.

Take your uneducated, agenda driven common sense, take your presentation and your grainy poor resolution photos of the "foundation" and tell someone who can do something. Quite acting like a child, gloating about the new toy they got for Xmas, and do the responsible, grown up thing here.

Every time you say "We are the first" you make it more clear where your agenda comes from, what your inspiration is for doing all this.

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

I was going to ask him whether it was simply that the screed had been damaged, as we might expect, and scraped back to the slab as part of the clean up. But that would probably just be semantics too, eh?

Indeed.

I found some of lytes pictures quite interesting in regard to the 'undamaged' slab.







Now to my untrained eye, the temporary supports are bearing at a level above the adjacent floor slab, suggesting that part of the loadbearing wall either side of the damaged area is above floor level. But I wonder if it is possible that there was a suspended floor above the slab, and that the floor within the undamaged area was retained at this level therefore necessittating the retention of the loadbearing wall to the same floor level.

There also appears to be a great deal of damage to the 'grey thingy at the bottom of the picture' in both the second and third pictures.

But then again, we all know how futile photgraphic analysis is unless more data is available.

 

[T.A.M.]

arguing with Lyte and his "Photographic" evidence, is like arguing with your 6 year old child about the WTC collapse based on his recently build LEGO model of the towers.

TAM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

arguing with Lyte and his "Photographic" evidence, is like arguing with your 6 year old child about the WTC collapse based on his recently build LEGO model of the towers.

TAM

i always felt the "WTC7 should have toppled" argument is based on an experiment involving alphabet blocks

 

[Bobert]

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.

Lyte,
Do you think that it was Wil Smith or Tommy Lee Jones that planted the lightpole and helped Lloyd remove it?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

Wrong again Ace. Lyte Trip is in the role of proponent and is making the claim that the status quo position that the Pentagon was struck by a Boeing is wrong. The burden of proof is on Lyte Trip to substantiate his claim. Lyte Trip's opponents (those supporting the status quo position that the Pentagon was struck by a Boeing) need only refute, that is to say present counter-claims, Lyte Trip's claims.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Indeed.

I found some of lytes pictures quite interesting in regard to the 'undamaged' slab.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_12295461a4085063c4.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_12295461a40aa72e02.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_12295461a40f322030.jpg[/URL]

Now to my untrained eye, the temporary supports are bearing at a level above the adjacent floor slab, suggesting that part of the loadbearing wall either side of the damaged area is above floor level. But I wonder if it is possible that there was a suspended floor above the slab, and that the floor within the undamaged area was retained at this level therefore necessittating the retention of the loadbearing wall to the same floor level.

There also appears to be a great deal of damage to the 'grey thingy at the bottom of the picture' in both the second and third pictures.

But then again, we all know how futile photgraphic analysis is unless more data is available.

Unless you are planning on presenting evidence that a Boeing striking the Pentagon could not have failed to caused the damage that you are expecting to see, then your opinions don't add up to spit.

Just because you think that a Boeing striking the Pentagon must cause a certain type of damage does not make it so, you must show that your assumption is valid. Otherwise your are just making an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Interesting.

So now I suppose I should simply use the term "1st floor" instead of foundation.

Semantics.

You guys are obsessed with it.

That's because WORDS MEAN THINGS. If I am discussing gravity with physicists and I describe it as a 'weak interaction', they are going to correct me and tell me that I am wrong, because even though gravitation is the weakest, it is a separate category of fundamental interaction than 'weak interactions' are.

Words matter, because exactness and accuracy help to convey the meaning of an idea while minimizing ambiguity.

Failing to be exact and accurate not only fails to convey the idea in a meaningful manner, but continuing to do so often suggests that such ambiguity is intentional and is being used in an attempt to mislead.