I wrote a big reply to all this but then the internet went down before I could post it.
I have it saved on a different computer and will post it for you tomorrow.
Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon
I wrote a big reply to all this but then the internet went down before I could post it.
I have it saved on a different computer and will post it for you tomorrow.
I could be mistaken, but I never read anyone asking you to speculate. They have asked for explanations which would require valid proof. If you do not have an explanation, it would be better for you just to say, "I don't have an explanation."
In any case, it is easy to see by the film that both Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse were confused about the placement of the plane. They both corroborate the fact that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and with sincere conviction. It is undeniable the level of corroboration amongst all witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon that it proves the official flight path and the damage. In fact, Sgt. Legasse previously stated he held plane parts in his hand and witnessed first hand bodies still strapped in chairs. Of course, you fail to question him about these statements. Is there something you are hiding?
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
true, but you have take their entire testimony into consideration and use that testimony against what is found via OTHER witnesses testimonies and the physical evidence.
that is what an investigator does.
they do NOT however, determine that one set of witnesses are more correct than another set, without GETTING ALL of their testimonies
Which you have not done
Which you have never attempted to do
Which you haven't corroborated against physical evidence.
False. You can't make that determination without
1) getting the testimony of other witnesses who were not at the CITGO station
2) looking at hte physical evidence
3) taking the testimony of hte investigators on scene
4) taking the testimony of the rescue crew on scene
5) taking the testimony of the American Airlines employees brought into help with the idenfitification
6) taking the testimony of the clean up crew who were brought in
7) taking the testimony of the FBI agents brought into collect evidence
8) taking the testimony of the Naval lab that was tasked with performing tests on the DNA evidence
9) taking the testimony of the NTSB who collected the data needed to determine the plane's trajectory
you're missing alot of detail; so its MORE correct to say that A cannot be true.
actually it can. When their memories start to put thigns out of context an place, to them A is true; to OTHERS however, it isn't true, because of all the other 1-9 details that you overlooked.
There are thousands of more reasons why they are wrong about A.
Both of them contradict your claims
Both my sister (6 years older than me) and I do not remember me being born. The high level of corroboration between us proves that I do not exist. Even though my father has said he remembers when I was born, when I specifically asked him if he "saw" me being born, he said "no". He was fooled into believing I was born. None of my other family members statements contradict the "me not being born" claim because they deduced I was born. This proves 9/11 was an inside job.
I asked you what you think hit the generator in front of the Pentagon. As shocking as this may be, everything that all of us ever say about anything that relates to 9/11 ever is speculation. Why? Because we didn't notice it ourselves. All we can do is look at the evidence and come up with the most reasonable assumptions based on them. You seem to think that this amounts to "speculation". Haven't you asked yourself why you can't do better than speculating about what happened to the generator? Does it bother you at all that your north-of-the-citgo claim does not come close to explaining what happened to the generator? If the plane did nick this generator, it definitively places the plane too low to have flown over the Pentagon. So by default, you must assume that the plane did not hit the generator.
See the problem? You explain something impossible by a matter of default. To you, it doesn't seem to matter how it happens. You simply explain it away with this frustratingly vague statement:
You seem to think that vast sums of money = mind-blowingly amazing technology that can remove material from massive objects and even move them considerably without use of explosives or anything at all for that matter. Why? Have you thought about this at all?
Seriously. Think about it. You suggested that the generator could have been moved by explosives. An explosive that moved the generator that much, and even removed a whole bunch of material from the generator, would have produced a very visible explosion, which includes a fireball and smoke. Fortunately, we do have video footage of the crash, and this smoke and fireball are not visible. Thus it is logical to conclude that explosives were not involved with the movement of the generator.
How else could it have moved? By some rotating platform that was specially installed to move it on 9/11? That doesn't explain the gouge. It also makes you wonder how such a thing could be installed without people noticing it....
What theories does that leave us with? That the Pentagon used their vast sums of money and advanced technology to stage this event? Seriously, how many people actually know about this damned generator? Why would the government go through the trouble of inventing technology that can move things and subtract material from them in ways that are not noticeable (and take it from this engineer that such an invention is, hands down, one of the dumbest inventions you could ever come up with) when they could just fly the plane into the building, or even fly the plane into that generator?
The fact of the matter is that your arguments make no logical sense. And at best, you can do no better than speculate about what happened to the generator. But what bothers me is that there is a very practical, reasonable explanation for what happened to this generator, and you deny it, not by offering evidence as it relates to the generator, but by offering completely different evidence and arguing that the generator damage was staged by default.
Here's the beauty of the official story. You can actually propose a theory. The plane knocked over light poles, hit the generator, and slammed into the building. The Purdue model is flawed and places the plane too low.
Let me do your job for you by offering your theory.
The plane flew north of the Citgo. It then maneuvered itself back towards the point of explosion only moments before the explosion, and it pulled up over the building. The generator must have been damaged by other means.
Of course, no eyewitness actually saw the plane fly over the building. And the security footage from the Doubletree Hotel is fake since it showed no plane flying over the Pentagon.
Why don't we summarize what you think is the fake evidence, which must be fake in order to fit with your theory?
-The 89 eyewitnesses that actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon are mistaken.
-The eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the light poles are mistaken.
-The light poles were brought down by some special means or planted by the government.
-The generator was damaged by some special means or planted by the government.
-The damaged trees in the area were brought down by some special means or planted by the government.
-The Pentagon security footage that shows a smoke trail only feet above the ground is faked since this smoke trail clearly establishes a flight path that did not go over the Pentagon.
-Everyone around the Pentagon, even behind the explosion, was somehow too distracted to notice that a plane had actually just flown over the building.
-The doubletree hotel footage that shows an explosion at the Pentagon and no plane flying over it is a forgery.
-The plane made a very tight turn after flying north of the Citgo, even though aviation experts at this forum have determined that if Flight 77 actually executed such a turn, its wings would be at a very steep angle, and no single eyewitness testified to seeing anything other than a relatively level aircraft
-The government planted explosives or sent an additional explosive at the Pentagon and, for some strange reason, forgot that a plane is also a very good explosive, and they sent the plane over the building for NO REASON AT ALL
If you are right, Lyte, then you have to believe every single one of the things above. To me, that's ridiculous. It's much less ridiculous to believe that your eyewitnesses were mistaken. Heck, a closer analysis of the testimony from the first guy showed that he didn't necessarily place the plane north of the Citgo! How you can accept all of the ridiculous assertions above, however, is beyond me. How do you respond to those?
Ahhh but in 'truther' land 'common sense' trumps 'logical sense'.
Don't forget, you're trying to convince someone who believes in the 'chemtrails' conspiracy. Someone who doesn't need any actual knowledge of construction or the process of aircrash investigation to KNOW, not just THINK or BELIEVE but KNOW, that the damage caused to the Pentagon supports his no plane theory.
Lyte thought he'd rock our world and would be accepting apologies by now. Well, the Pentacon failed to move. Even his own brethren at LCF have snubbed it.
Perfectly legitimate objections to the eyewitness testimony presented in his video have been raised here and elsewhere. No doubt Lyte is sick of being told "physical evidence beats eyewitness testimony", so he now sets out to disprove the physical evidence, a la killklown and the shanksville crash site.
But, just like killklown, Lyte has no expertise to bring to the debate, he just finks it don't look right.
Lyte wants us to believe that the floor slab shown in those limited pictures is undamaged, and that if a plane had hit the pentagon it would have been damaged.
But he has yet to explain how the building could have collapsed onto that slab and it still remain undamaged, or how explosives could have been used to blow out the exterior wall and cause internal damage and yet not damage the floor slab.
He doesn't explain, because he doesn't know the answer. He doesn't know what the slab should look like after the building collapse or the explosion, because he doesn't have the expertise or the imagination to consider it.
The thing is, he doesn't have the expertise or the imagination to consider the damage which would be caused by a plane crashing into the pentagon either. Very few people do.
Without a previous example of the same sized plane crashing at the same speed into the same part of the structure, no one can really be sure what the damage will look like. Well, prior to 9/11 at least. Now we do know. Because that is what happened on 9/11 and that is what we see in those pictures.
But if you believe in chemtrails, it's easy for you to believe that everything you are told by people who know more than you is a lie (excpet if they also believe in chemtrails of course).
We'll never convince lyte trip. He has too much invested now in his conspiracy fantasy.
Last edited:
Mince
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,009
You have four "witnesses" who claim the (an) aircraft flew over the North side of the NEX. However, you have those same four witnesses who say the exact plane they saw fly over the North side of the NEX hit the Pentagon.
Your eyewitness testimony contradicts the physical evidence. The physical evidence outweighs the eyewitness testimony by an infinite magnitude, especially since physical evidence doesn't forget after time. Once you can reconcile the physical evidence with your eyewitness testimony, then you might have a breakthrough.
Please review Darat's notice about moderation of this sub-forum, and refrain from personal attacks.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
Last edited by a moderator:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Then the problem is soley with the way the FDR data is being used by PFT or, the FDR data is incorrect due to faulty altitude measuring instruments or instruments that were operating in a situation beyond their certified operating parameters. That or your eyewitnesses are wrong about the height.
Which do you support Lyte?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I would expect it would be a longer post given the length of mine.
Just a suggestion; I copy my longer posts to my clipboard before posting. That way if the submission of the post does not go through it is still in my clipboard and I can then save it to "Word" and post it again later from the same computer.
Lyte, while you are at it I also have a post on page 8 concerning the physical evidence at the Pentagon. Perhaps you'd address that post as well, especially in reference to where the debris from an outward exploding wal went.
Last edited:
Mince
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,009
Please review Darat's notice about moderation of this sub-forum, and refrain from personal attacks.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
Yeah, I apologize. I let drunken anger best me.
Lyte, if at least two of your witnesses (all four?) saw the plane hit the Pentagon (or at least fly into the fireball, as you say) did any of them notice any pre-planted debris on the lawn? There was a considerable amount of debris. Surely one of your witness would have noticed the pre-planted debris. Did you even ask them about the debris? If they watched the plane hit the Pentagon, that would a very logical question to ask.
The biggest mystery about the pentacon, for me anyway, is just how deep her voice is.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Pardalis in that Utube video you posted. Look just above the ticket machine just before impact. Is that a light pole way back on the exit ramp of the highway disappearing as the plane crosses?
Thanks for your interest. I will start it, and I planned to have done so already, but today's turned out to be fairly busy and I don't want to rush the OP so as not to make it too long. (Brevity takes longer, for me.) Tomorrow, most likely.
I do plan to try to "moderate" (in a figurative sense, as I am not a moderator on this forum) the discussion to keep it focused on the topic of the hypothesized fly-over illusion and avoid getting side-tracked into other subjects such as the presence/absence of airplane debris already debated in other threads. However, insofar as the presence of other aircraft in the area could plausibly contribute to such an illusion, I agree that you should certainly include them in the discussion.
Respectfully,
Myriad
If you notice in the credit roll at the end we thank her for doing voice overs in the "Researcher's Edition" which has not been released yet.
She reads all the quotes for us.
We did not include any quotes in the narrative of the "Smoking Gun Version".
A. They couldn't even see the light poles from that location let alone a few small pieces of debris on the lawn.
B. There was not a "considerable amount" of debris.
Here is the extent of all significant sized pieces that have been reported as found outside:
C. The debris may have been planted simultaneously with the explosion or dispersed from some other type of nearby detonation that happened at the same time.
Look at 2:47.
There most certainly is an odd glow.
However that was likely inserted to obscure the fact that they altered the footage.
The gif does seem to enhance the "glow" in the animation but when viewing the full animation it is merely a part of the effect of the explosion.
It is simply an animation for demonstration purposes and not meant to depict live accuracy to perfection.
Relax.
PFT is simply reporting the anomalies in the data and demanding answers. The NTSB refuses to acknowledge that there are any errors and insists that the data is what it is.
Naturally I do not support government supplied data that is irreconcilable with their own story or the eyewitness accounts.
The eyewitnesses can only estimate.
Bottom line ALL other data conflicts with the physical damage 100%.