Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Pardalis]

However that was likely inserted to obscure the fact that they altered the footage.

There was no glow and I think you put it in your animation to help you create the effect that the plane disappears.

How about that?

 

[mortimer]

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.

Just to be clear, are you using "significant" as a synonym for "large"?

 

[jaydeehess]

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%.

Whoa, you can't have it both ways Lyte.

You have hyped your video for months starting prior to its release as being so very, very rock solid as to showing that the plane could not have moved along the same path as it is said to have.

You praise P4T for doing much the same only their main beef is that the plane was too high. P4T makes no claim that the FDR data is faked do they? So it must be correct, at the very least it is not from the plane you attempt to show was flying towards the Pentagon on 9/11, yet it is of one that was flying a lot lower over the Pentagon than would be normal.

If faked then it is really strange that the perpetrators would miss a very important item such as the altitue of the aircraft as it passed over the highway. If it is from a plane that over flew the Pentagon it was not the plane your indisputable witnesses saw. If it was from a plane that over flew the Pentagon at 200 feet agl no one saw it do so on, before or after 9/11.

Now you are faced with your indisputable(arguably) witnesses claiming the plane was at least half as close to the ground than the FDR illustrates.

I certainly agree, they can only speculate, that would be similar in fashion as their description of how long it took the plane to travel from when they first saw it and into the Pentagon(which they all say it did)

So, are the testimonies of your witnesses the bombshell indisputable evidence that you hyped them to be or not?

Now I'll have to check your answer to my other post.

 

[Totovader]

Oh ok well I got the pic by googling Barney Fife Badge under google images.
I will DL the pic and attach it next time.
I have heard the expression hotlinking before but now it makes sense what it means.
Thanks!

[ot]
For anyone concerned about hotlinking- there's a free service that makes it so you don't have to keep hotlinking to the same server.

http://imgred.com/

Will host the image the first time it's requested so you aren't hotlinking.

Just FYI. This topic is going nowhere anyway...[/ot]

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

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

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:
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon%20stills/robertpoints1.jpg[/qimg]


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.




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.

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?


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.

I will endevour to watch Robert's part again. However he is very clear that the plane passed over where he was, was he not? How in God's name could he then not see both engines? The only way for him to only be able to see one engine would be if the plane was beyond another object or further away such that one side is obstructed from view.

Running east, north, south or into another dimension he was moving and this would obscure his ability to see the plane rise which was my point. This is important because you want the plane rising at some point to illustrate a flyover.

Again, I will try and find time to rewatch it but I believe I heard him say that all he saw of the impact was the fireball, not that the fireball prevented him from seeing it impact the building.(which doesn't even make any sense since even in your senario the fireball occurs when the plane passes overhead, not before it reachs the Pentagon)

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

But from where you are the far right pump is next to the station store. He indicates the guy pumping gas. That is on the right side of the far left pump. Both of you have left/right confused it seems.

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.
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/PentaCon%20stills/brookspointing.jpg[/qimg]


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.

So, one of two things that your indisputable witnesses say is true and the other untrue. The plane was either to the north or it hit the Pentagon at the location of the fireball.
However, many other witnesses state the plane did pass over the path indicated by the knocked over poles. That suggests that of those two items, the impact is the one that your witnesses did get correct.

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.

Which is contradicted by many other witnesses whom your choose to ignore.

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

No, he says he saw the plane in the general vicinity of only those witnesses you choose to interview.

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

But it is logical to suggest that they were all wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon, correct?(well Robert was not able to see that)

 

[Bobert]

[ot]
For anyone concerned about hotlinking- there's a free service that makes it so you don't have to keep hotlinking to the same server.

http://imgred.com/

Will host the image the first time it's requested so you aren't hotlinking.

Just FYI. This topic is going nowhere anyway...[/ot]

So I take it you haven't pre-ordered your copy of the Researchers Edition?

I guess Lyte's "smoking gun" shot blanks.

 

[Mince]

I guess Lyte's "smoking gun" shot blanks.

You have to appreciate the effort however. He failed miserably, of course, but at least he attempted some investigating that didn't involve his computer and the internet.

 

[Pardalis]

Why not just fly a plane into it?

-Gumboot

He tried to explain it once:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2473451#post2473451

I guess in his world it makes sense.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Why not just fly a plane into it?

Because a plane would just bounce off the Pentagon, just as it would've if any plane actually hit either of the Twin Towers! C'mon, now!

 

[Lyte Trip]

Whoa, you can't have it both ways Lyte.

You have hyped your video for months starting prior to its release as being so very, very rock solid as to showing that the plane could not have moved along the same path as it is said to have.

And it does. Quadruple corroborated first hand testimony filmed on site is pretty rock solid.

You praise P4T for doing much the same only their main beef is that the plane was too high. P4T makes no claim that the FDR data is faked do they?

Actually they do but that doesn't matter. They are mostly just demanding explanations for the anomalies.

So it must be correct, at the very least it is not from the plane you attempt to show was flying towards the Pentagon on 9/11, yet it is of one that was flying a lot lower over the Pentagon than would be normal.

No you are basing this on the incorrect notion that I accept the FDR as valid which I do not.

If faked then it is really strange that the perpetrators would miss a very important item such as the altitue of the aircraft as it passed over the highway. If it is from a plane that over flew the Pentagon it was not the plane your indisputable witnesses saw. If it was from a plane that over flew the Pentagon at 200 feet agl no one saw it do so on, before or after 9/11.

Yep. Very strange. I would think you would want answers for something so serious.

Now you are faced with your indisputable(arguably) witnesses claiming the plane was at least half as close to the ground than the FDR illustrates.

Further proving the FDR as invalid.

I certainly agree, they can only speculate, that would be similar in fashion as their description of how long it took the plane to travel from when they first saw it and into the Pentagon(which they all say it did)

So, are the testimonies of your witnesses the bombshell indisputable evidence that you hyped them to be or not?

Absolutely. They prove the plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

 

[uk_dave]

So Lyte, how do you explain the apparently 'undamaged' ground floor slab at the pentagon given that the structure collapsed down on to it?

You seem to have avoided this question. Could it be that:

If you cannot explain this, then you are in no position to demand that the aircraft should have also damaged the floor slab.

If you can explain this, then the same reasoning could be used to explain the lack of damage from the aircraft impact.

Perhaps you have a third option?

 

[Mobyseven]

And it does. Quadruple corroborated first hand testimony filmed on site is pretty rock solid.

You keep saying this - "Quadruple corroborated first hand testimony..."

I find that it is odd that you call this rock solid, and that you use such obfuscating wording to discuss this.

Why don't you just say what you have?

Four witnesses, whose accounts of where the plane was located only corroborate eachother in the sense that they don't place the plane where a multitude of other witnesses who were closer to the unfolding events place it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Nope, still no headlines in the media about these earth-shaking findings.

And there won't ever be.

 

[gumboot]

Lyte Trip,

I see you're back. Will you please explain in your own words what foreshortening is and how this might be important in relation to the photographs of The Pentagon?

-Gumboot

 

[I Am He]

Lyte, have you by any chance call your eyewitnesses liars to their face?? You didn't?? I wonder why?? You've been saying it here, am I not correct?? Now how could they be telling you the truth about the plane flying on the left side and hitting the Pentagon at the same time??

I Am He

Please bear in mind the new guidelines for the CT forum. Be civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Obviousman]

Although I totally disagree with Lyte's conclusions, I have to congratulate him for maintaining generally civil tone during all the rebuttals.

What's my point? Notice the difference between here (the evil empire) and the loose change forum. You don't get banned here - without warning - for holding an opposing view.

 

[Belz...]

The citgo witnesses have proven that they were either embellishing or lying.

The notion that there are 99 previously published accounts of people who literally "saw" the impact is absurd.

So, basically, all the OTHER witnesses are lying, but YOUR witnesses are dead-on ? What makes THEM special, aside from the fact that what they say agrees with you ?

We know some people up on 395 would have seen the fly over.

They were just told it was a different plane.

Speculation. Or did you interview any of them ?

One that was reportedly "shadowing" the AA jet

Do you know what that term means ?

But the illusion would have easily fooled those out route 27 and obviously at the citgo.

Nobody else had a good enough view.

And it's a good thing, too. The NWO planned this crash exactly at the moment where no one would have a good view!!

The citgo witnesses have proven the plane didn't cause the physical damage.

This implicates people all the way to the top in this crime.

Double non sequitur.

At this point the evidence has proven otherwise so it makes no sense to suggest I could believe something that is not true unless reality was altered.

Yes, reality was altered. In your mind.

This has been proven.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

There wasn't an investigation.

They were told what happened and accepted it.

Ah, yes. Every expert in the world simply takes the word of the US government at face value. Everybody is a yes-man. EXCEPT truthers.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I think this simplistic understanding of physics summarises the entire truth movement.

Perhaps one of you will feel inclined to do the math to prove me wrong!

The universe was created when a cosmic-sized brown chicken laid it like an egg. Prove me wrong.

 

[Belz...]

You are quite wrong.

It is quite clear that the plane was on the north of the citgo. Rational unbiased people that watch this testimony can only agree.

Ah, yes. YOUR witnesses, again.

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

Semantics.

You guys are obsessed with it.

THIS is your response to Gumboot's proof that you were incorrect in your assumptions ?

Amazing.

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

Ah, so you dont' know what "semantics" means ?

The viewer MUST choose which to believe.

Yeah, THAT's how investigations are made. Faith.

There is no need to abandon common sense.

I was wondering when "common sense" would creep up.

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

Evidence ?

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.

I don't think you know what "unbiased" means.

It's simply what the witnesses saw.

Witnesses vs reality, and in your mind reality loses.

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.

Yes, based on the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. The evidence we HAVE supports the plane crash theory.

 

[Go_]

Wrong. Plenty of people saw it. They were just told it was a different plane. Others even reported a "2nd plane" that shadowed the AA jet and veered off over the Pentagon at the time of "impact". Imagine that!

. . . yet of the 4 witnesses you spoke with in "The Pentacon" not one of them say that they saw a second plane. They all say that they saw only one plane.

Don't you think this odd?

Here's a possible explanation. They never saw AA flight 77 fly north of the Citgo. Instead, they saw the second plane fly north of the Citgo and believed it to be flight 77.

They heard but didn't see flight 77 because, since it was south of the Citgo, their view would be blocked. They saw the second plane fly north of the Citgo, then a couple of seconds later -- blam! -- they see the Pentagon explode and believe that the plane they just saw (the second plane) was the plane that had crashed into it.

This story makes every bit as much as sense as your story does and it better fits the physical evidence.

 

[Belz...]

If the citgo witnesses are correct the poles had to have been staged.

Interesting.

I have never claimed to know for sure how they staged the damage to the generator trailer.

You asked me to speculate about this!

You're going to have to have a theory at one point. Otherwise all you're doing is speculating.

To suggest it would be impossible for the richest most powerful defense agency on earth to do this in their own backyard is not a valid argument.

No matter how rich they are, they can't change the laws of physics.

B. There was not a "considerable amount" of debris.

And yet your pictures prove otherwise.

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.

That's not speculation, anymore. That's pure fantasy.

However that was likely inserted to obscure the fact that they altered the footage.

How can you say something is "likely" when you're just making it up as you go ?

Bottom line ALL other data conflicts with the physical damage 100%.

Especially all those plane parts found in the building!

It bothers me because I most certainly would like to know all the details even though I know this is impossible but nevertheless it does not convince me that the plane didn't fly on the north side of the citgo station.

And since the plane did fly on the north side of the citgo station it couldn't be what damaged the trailer.

Slow down, mate. You're using your admitted belief as rock-solid assumptions, here.



And, as you've been asked, why didn't they just fly a plane into the Pentagon ??