Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[stateofgrace]

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.

Why ?

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.

Here is my response to yesterday's post. I'll check the one on page 8.

When Robert is interviewed he states he saw one engine 'on the wing'. He is obviously stating that he could not see the engine on the other wing. Repeatedly he is also asked if he saw any other plane and specifically if he saw a C-130.

Robert was on the south side of the station and he saw the plane on the north side. He was not directly underneath it. He was simply being clear that there was only one "turbine engine" on the wing and not two propeller engines like you would see on a c-130.

The interviewer however ignores his stating that there was no other aircraft and characterizes his account as that of a single engine craft.

Nonsense. Nothing was ignored. He saw only one plane and was very specific about this and very specific that it was a passenger jet.

The interviewer also ignores the internal inconsistencies in the witnesses testimony. Robert states he could only see one engine on the wing but also has stated that he was all but directly under the plane as it passed over. It would not be possible to be unable to see both engines from that vantage point. Unless the aircraft that passed overhead had only one engine on one wing the statements are inconsistent.

He says it was the tip of the right wing that was close to the north end of the canopy and that the rest of the plane was further north. This was his story since day one to his manager and in our initial phone conversations with him. He was on the south side of the station and was not directly underneath the plane. Here he points to where the plane was in relation to where he was:

Another inconsistency is that Robert draws a flight path on the photo putting the plane directly over the corner of the canopy. Asked which part of the plane went over the canopy's corner he states the right wing did. That would put the trajectory over the asphalt to the north of the canopy. Did Robert draw a path of the starboard wing or did he misunderstand the question and state that or mis-state which wing went over the corner of the canopy and then change his story to match what he just said rather than admit that he meant the port wing went over the corner.

He drew the plane as close to the station that he remembered it being but clarified that the body of the plane was further north. EVEN IF he meant his line is where the fuselage was (but he didn't) the flight path is still irreconcilable with the physical damage and on the north side of the station.

Robert states that the plane pulled up to clear a highway overhead sign. When he details his account of it pulling up it is obvious that he is saying that it pulled up while he was moving up the enbankment. In other words he had to be watching the plane while running and asending the enbankment. This would have his view changing as he moved north and up and would affect how he perceived the movement of the plane.

He ran EAST to the mound, not north. That would not change his perception of the plane being north or south of the station at all.

Robert also states he did not see the impact. He says this is due to the enbankment being lower then than it is today but the interviewer ignores that instead concentrating on his saying that he did not see the impact.

What? You are quite wrong. Please watch the interview again. He as quite clear when he specifically says that the "fireball is what obstructed his view. Why are you making stuff up?

It is very possible that Robert saw the aircraft pass to the south of the station but is misreading how close it is to him. He believes it passed directly over the station but it was further south than that. He climbs the bank which further confuses the interpretation of the movement of the aircraft. He states he saw the plane pass in about two seconds. That is probably an understatement as it would hardly give him time to run to the enbankment. However it does underline the short time he had to develop any visual reference as the plane roared by.
When interviewed he says the right wing passed over the corner but then realizes that he meant to say the left wing and instead of correcting himself he changes his story to match his mistake which is evident in the very deliberate drawing of the flight path where he at best puts the fuselage over the corner of the building. He now actually has two paths for the plane, the one he drew(fuselage over the corner), his last one in which he puts the fuselage over the tree to the north of the station and there is the suggestion that he saw the entire aircraft over the station which would neccessitate the aircraft be south of the canopy since the plane is wider than the entire station.

You are extrapolating and twisting his testimony to some how reconcile this account with the official story. His placement of the entire plane on the north side of the station was what he has maintained since 9/11 as confirmed by his manager and now corroborated by 2 Pentagon Police officers. He never said or meant anything different and even if he did it would have STILL been fatally off course from the light poles.

Sgt Brook states he was filling his vehicle "where that gentleman is" pointing to a man filling his car in the second from the north end. The interviewer states "so, the far right?" and Brooks answers in the affirmative. But from the pov of where they are standing it is slightly to the right and to the pov of the canopy it is closer to the far left.

I simply meant the far right pump. All this is irrelevant since that is not where he was when he saw the plane.

Later Brooks is describing where he saw the plane and is asked if it was to the left or to the right. He states to the left and points. However this is the direction which he had, moments before, characterized as 'right'.

Please watch the interview again. The question I asked him was......"When facing the Pentagon was the plane more to the left or the right of the station." He was quite clear and he pointed as well to demonstrate this 100% so there would be no confusion. Every single reference he made to the plane was over to the north. Just like Lagasse and just like Robert.

As the interview continues he states that saw the plane "go directly in front of the building". While it seems obvious that the building he is refering to is the Pentagon he could mean the Citgo station. That would put the aircraft to the south of the station. However, it is a good bet he is refering to the Pentagon. Therefore he states it is in front of the Pentagon and then boom a huge explosion. He states, three times, very clearly that he saw the plane impact the Pentagon!!!

Yes we know he believed the plane hit the building as they all did. But clearly it could not have if it was ANYWHERE near where they all place the plane. When he says "to the front of the building" he mean the north side of the gas station.

He describes the plane as a "very large " aircraft. he says '737' but the basic shape of a 737 is a passenger jet with two wing mounted engines, so is a 757 and a 767. Most people would recognize a 747 with its bulge in the forward part of the fuselage but the other three look basically the same unless one has time to get a good look or is very familiar with each aircraft. Obviously he did not have that time. Everything happened very quick but he seems pretty sure he saw a logo and states it may have been "United" blue logo. Sgt. Brooks is really not all that certain about any of the details of the aircraft he saw, except for having seen it fly into the Pentagon. I don't fault him for this. It was a situation unlike any he had ever witnessed before and will in all probability never witness again and from start to finish lasted only seconds culminating in the single most riveting scene he is likely to ever see, the impact of a high speed , large aircraft into a large, important building.

The plane he saw was most definitely on the north side of the station. This is the only point we are claiming to be a smoking gun.

Sgt. Lagasse positively identifies the aircraft as American Airlines. He states that the plane went from where he first saw it to the Pentagon in a second. Probably not quite right but again very quick. He positively states , no landing gear or flaps down. He very positively states that the plane hit the Pentagon even describing that it hit at an angle and using his hands to indicate an angle very much in agreement with that which we are told the plane hit the building. He does seem to be quite confident that the plane went over to the north but readily admits(albeit with a slight bit of sheepishness in his voice and demeanor) that recollections change. He does state that it was never coming at him yet he ducks into his car. Ok that could be a common reaction, its moving fast and the brain has not had time to determine exact trajectory yet so you act instinctively. It could also be that the plane was indeed coming at him and he reacted to that. It also puts him moving quickly which as in the case of Robert can confuse the mind as to the direction the object came from or manouvers it made. Later he describes how he is reconstructing in his mind where the plane was by what he could see concerning the trees and other obstructions. In other words he cannot be sure, he is assuming a direction from the visibility he had from where he was. He saw the plane hit the Pentagon but is adamant that there was no upward mevement of the plane. He mentions, and all the witnesses here also say, that he did not see it hit the light poles. However, he also points out that the poles blend into the building as they are a similar color as the building and are barely visible at all. the videographer zooms into "light pole 1" from where he is standing. This is not where Sgt Lagasse was at the time nor did the Sgt. have the ability to 'zoom in'. He believes that the plane took only a second to move from where he first saw it to the Pentagon. However can that be? At 400 to 450 MPH the plane was doing 580 to 660 feet per second. If the aircraft was more than 660 feet from the building when he first saw it then it had to take longer than one second. In fact the Citgo station is much farther than 660 feet from the Pentagon. It was longer than one second.
Near the end he also states that the poles that were hit were north of where the poles actually were hit, that the taxi was north of where the taxi actually was. So is his recollection of the path of the aircraft incorrect or is the loaction of the poles and the taxi incorrect? Given that we know exactly where the poles and the taxi were I vote he is incorrect.
That is all I have had time to go over but what we have here is the whole range of the problems with eyewitness testimony.

This is far from 'smoking gun' evidence.

He saw the plane in the same general vicinity as the other witnesses.

It is not logical to suggest that ALL of them were so ridiculously mistaken in regards to this simple right or left claim.

 

[gumboot]

Here is the extent of all significant sized pieces that have been reported as found outside:

Lyte Trip when you post those images, you are posting images of a Pentagon lawn literally covered in pieces of aircraft.

How can you be so dishonest?

This is as bad as Truthseeker posting pictures of the pile at Ground Zero, claiming it's a crater, and demanding to know where all the steel went.

Open your eyes, man! Your own witnesses contradict your statements. None of them are clear about where they were or what happened. Your own photographs contradict your assertions.

You have nothing.

And PLEASE, for the sake of all that's holy, stop pretending you know how to interpret photographs, because you clearly don't.

-Gumboot

 

[Lyte Trip]

Why ?

To fool people into believing that the plane hit the building silly.

 

[gumboot]

To fool people into believing that the plane hit the building silly.

Why not just fly a plane into it?

-Gumboot

 

[chippy]

Lyte, I would appreciate a response to my comments.

 

[stateofgrace]

To fool people into believing that the plane hit the building silly.

Why ?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte Trip when you post those images, you are posting images of a Pentagon lawn literally covered in pieces of aircraft.


-Gumboot

Nonsense.

Those were all of the significant sized pieces that were reported outside of the building. (and they still aren't very significant or positively identifiable).

Sure there were some other tiny indistinguishable scraps.

Obviously they would be even easier to disperse.

 

[gumboot]

Nonsense.

These were all of the significant pieces that were reported outside of the building.

Sure there were some other tiny indistinguishable scraps.

Obviously they would be even easier to disperse.

YOU CAN SEE THEM IN YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS!

Look at those "tiny indistinguishable scraps" and compare them to other recognisable objects nearby such as the fire engines. There's nothing tiny about them.

Do you know what foreshortening is?

-Gumboot

 

[Lyte Trip]

Wow, 4 days, 8 pages.

I read the first two and last one, so if anything I say has been covered before forgive me for not wanting to go over the other 5.

I see that Architect and others came in and established what 'foundation' means for Lytely. That was one of the things that tweaked me on page 1.

Also on page 1 is Lyte's claim that the plane went in under the first floor ceiling and that such is the 'official' theory.

I have never claimed this. I have only said the first two floors.

This turned me off to the rest of your long winded post right away and frankly I don't have the time to answer it all.

 

[Lyte Trip]

YOU CAN SEE THEM IN YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS!

Look at those "tiny indistinguishable scraps" and compare them to other recognisable objects nearby such as the fire engines. There's nothing tiny about them.

Do you know what foreshortening is?

-Gumboot

Show the part.

Prove that it's from a plane and prove that it's more significant than any of the pieces I have shown.

There are 100's of high resolution images from all over that lawn.

There are no more significant pieces.

 

[gumboot]

Show the part.

Prove that it's from a plane and prove that it's more significant than any of the pieces I have shown.

There are 100's of high resolution images from all over that lawn.

There are no more significant pieces.

Do you know what foreshortening is?

-Gumboot

 

[stateofgrace]

Lyte why did they need to fool everybody into believing that a plane hit the building?

Why?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Do you know what foreshortening is?

-Gumboot

Yep.

You have no idea what the pieces are that are being foreshortened.

Prove that it's from a plane and prove that it's more significant than any of the pieces I have shown.

There are 100's of high resolution images from all over that lawn.

There are no more significant pieces.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Ok gotta go for now. Serious, intelligent, civil, and relevant inquiries will be addressed.

Peace.
Lyte

 

[stateofgrace]

Lyte why did they need to fool everybody into believing that a plane hit the building?

Why?

Ok gotta go for now. Serious, intelligent, civil, and relevant inquiries will be addressed.

Peace.
Lyte

Why won't you answer my perfectly civil question?

 

[David Wong]

Lyte why did they need to fool everybody into believing that a plane hit the building?

Why?

Why not just fly the plane into it?

Or use bombs and say Al Qaeda planted them?

Why, why, why pull off this ridiculously convoluted stunt that can go wrong in 50,000 different ways, and requires hundreds of people and thousands of other people to suddenly go blind or lose their memories?

A bomb that scatters aircraft debris? Really?





Really? You're actually thinking that? In your head?

 

[gumboot]

Yep.

You have no idea what the pieces are that are being foreshortened.

Would you explain what foreshortening is and how it would relate to the photographs we have from The Pentagon?

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

Funny thing is his chief witnesses were some of the first if not the first guys on the scene! They would have seen the MIB setting out all the evidence and Mr Lyte Trip would have a Pulitzer Prize. But as we all know his witnesses saw the plane hit posts, and hit the pentagon. And his witnesses did not see the MIB setting out fake evidence. If anyone forgot, their original stories were take in 2001 and can be heard here.

Here are their stories back in 2001, more information on both. Interview with Brooks and Lagasse, here: http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html

Lagasse Interview

Books iterview ,


Why do you tell and make up lies?

Ok gotta go for now. Serious, intelligent, civil, and relevant inquiries will be addressed.

Peace.
Lyte

LOLANL

 

[Pardalis]

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.

That's a lens glare.

The light from the blast refracted in the security camera's optics. Nothing odd about it.