Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Disbelief]

Lyte, do you believe that there was another plane shadowing Flight 77 or did it just flyover? Just trying to make sure I understand your theory.

 

[Randy Mott]

Why would anyone need to go to the trouble of flying the plane in from one direction and "staging" a fake approach from another direction? There is no logic reason for Mr. Trip's elaborate game of "planted evidence."

It is also clear that some of his four witnesses saw the planes hit light posts and saw other things inconsistent with the revisionist interpretation that the lane was north of the CITGO station. If the witnesses had been under oath, I would have shown them the damaged area and light poles and ask if this is where they saw the plane. Then I would go to the over-view with the CITGO and ask them where the plane was in relation to the station.

It is typical for witnesses to get facts wrong and miss things, especially years later. Where their own testimony contradicts the location of the plane in relation to the gas station, you have to asume that they are mistaken in their recollection. Where all of the other witnesses closer to the flight path saw it fly by and hit things and the physical evidence supports that conclusion, there is no doubt in any reasonable mind.

The alternative explanation of the evidence gets so attentuated that it is a joke. Something else that no one saw hit the Pentagon? Flight 77 simply disappeared from the FAA radar and the DNA from its passengers' dead bodies was planted at the Pentagon? Dozens of bagged and tagged samples with chains of custody logs were faked? Dozens of witnesses were intimidated or somehow made to lie?

All this for what reason? Why would it be necessary for any conspiracy to go through all of this nonsense? There is no logical explanation.... not to mention the reams of physical evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Randy

 

[HyJinX]

. . . 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.

Great point, Go. Nice job.

Lyte...prove Go is wrong.

 

[peteweaver]

Lyte, the no plane theories are amusing to say the least...

 

[Matthew Best]

No, they're amusing to say the most.

 

[jaydeehess]

Ok, I have watched Robert's statements again.

He puts the plane over the corner of the canopy, or over the tree next to the corner of the canopy. This is well south of where the other witnesses at the Citgo put it. It also puts it almost directly overhead where Robert is.

Now, he hears the plane but would be unable to see it until he runs out from under the canopy. He believes at that point that he turned to his left and saw the plane. However he is quite clear that he saw only one engine which is simply unbelieveable if the plane did pass almost directly over his head as he is stating. However if the plane was further off to one side then it is more likely in that the fuselage would then block his view of the far engine. He states that he could only see the engine "on my side".

Robert then states that the plane rose to go over the overhead signage and that his view of the impact was obstructed. Well yes it would be obstructed since the bank was lower and the plane was below the highway overpass when it hit the Pentagon. From where he was the first floor of the Pentagon is not visible. He DOES NOT say that he could not see the impact because of the fireball. When asked if he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon he looks confused as to why the question would be asked saying that he only saw the plane fly "in a direct line to go into the Pentagon".

So we have a witness that saw an event occur that took only seconds. this witness had to run, he did not walk as that would not have afforded him time to get to where he says he was when the plane hit the Pentagon, and turn to one side. It is very possible that the acoustics of the station had him turn to his left to seek the origin of the sound but that he had to turn almost 180 degrees before he actually caught sight of it over the canopy to the south side of the station affording him a view of the port engine but not the starboard one. The overhead sign near where the taxi was is the signage that he saw the plane flyover and all but disappear as it headed down to the ground level of the Pentagon.

In later recollection he recalls that he turned to his left but is mistaken as to where he finally caught sight of the plane. It is well known that our brains will often fill in blanks in memory and it is likely that is what is happening to Robert here. The plane simply could not have gone over his head the way he says it did and not have him see both engines so we already know that he is mistaken.

He, and the next two witnesses are very adamant that they did not see the plane fly over the Pentagon or see any other aircraft. It would be beyond belief that they would not be looking at the Pentagon just after the fireball and further beyond belief that they would not have seen another aircraft heading for the same spot as the impact area of the Pentagon. No one else saw another aircraft fly over or near the area of the impact at the Pentagon either. There was no other aircraft flying over the Pentagon that could be confused with the one that these or other witnesses saw hit the Pentagon.

Only Robert reports a riseing up of the plane but Robert was also running up the bank so his perspective was cghanging in azimuth and elevation as this was occuring. that raises doubt about this manouver.



more later perhaps, lunch is over

 

[Lyte Trip]

He DOES NOT say that he could not see the impact because of the fireball.

Yes he does.

He SPECIFICALLY says this.

He heard and saw the plane and then ran up to the mound to get a better view and then saw the plane pull up and and explosion.

When I press him about whether or not he actually saw the impact he says:

"No....it was obstructed still.....all I could see was the fireball."

Plus he was NOT directly under the plane. This is clear.

Yes he remembers it being closer to the station then Brooks and Lagasse but that is a simple perception issue.

Point is that ALL of them most definitely saw the actual plane on the north side. This is undeniable.

They did not see a shadow and they saw details of the plane.

If the plane was on the physical damage path they would not have heard and seen the plane on the complete opposite side of the station.

It is clear that ALL of their senses convinced them without any doubt whatsoever that the plane was on the north side.

 

[Architect]

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

I suspect that Lyte is blissfully unaware that for UK, Antipodeans, and others the "first floor" is what Americans call the second floor, and hence the side swipe he takes is somewhat misplaced. JayDee's original post makes perfect sense.

 

[Blackwell]

...Yes he remembers it being closer to the station then Brooks and Lagasse but that is a simple perception issue.

So you're admitting that that your witnesses could have perceived the same event differently. I guess that's a positive step.

It is clear that ALL of their senses convinced them without any doubt whatsoever that the plane was on the north side.

I hope their tongues are OK.

 

[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.

And STILL waiting, Lyte.

 

[Lyte Trip]

jaydeehess,

You need to realize that the physical damage flight path is relatively far south of the station. This would not be an easy mistake to make as the difference compared to what they saw is DRASTIC.

They would have most definitely heard it much different as well.

It makes no sense that they would all place it so far on the north side if this was the case.

Even for one of them to do this would be strange but all 3?

No way.

 

[Lyte Trip]

And STILL waiting, Lyte.

For what?

You don't believe that a several ton engine digging deep into the floor (is that term ok to use?) of the building would cause significant or visible damage and I do.

 

[Lyte Trip]

So you're admitting that that your witnesses could have perceived the same event differently. I guess that's a positive step.

When have I said otherwise?

They all have different descriptions of the plane. We left all the contradictions in their testimony and did not hide this one bit.

But the very simple and general claim of what side of the station the plane flew is the ONLY claim we are calling a smoking gun.

There is "no chance" it was on the physical damage flight path.

They only have to be somewhat correct in their approximate placement of the plane.

The chances that they are all so drastically incorrect in the exact same way are slim to none.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For what?

You don't believe that a several ton engine digging deep into the floor (is that term ok to use?) of the building would cause significant or visible damage and I do.

What you believe doesn't mean spit unless you can demonstrate that it is consistent with reality.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I suspect that Lyte is blissfully unaware that for UK, Antipodeans, and others the "first floor" is what Americans call the second floor, and hence the side swipe he takes is somewhat misplaced. JayDee's original post makes perfect sense.

As does mine.

 

[HyJinX]

As does mine.

Wishful thinking, Lyte...but..ummmmm....no. I've watched your "after school special" three times now and all I can say is...your witnesses are mistaken. I forget stuff all the time and I get confused as to which direction I'm facing or moving in on a regular basis. Given the physical evidence and the numerous other eye-witnesses that were there, I think your witnesses are simply mistaken about what they saw that day. Sorry...it's just not enough to prove convincing or compelling. It's just not enough.

 

[Lyte Trip]

. . . 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.

Ok. So find an official record of a second passenger jumbo jet that flew treetop level over Arlington and you might have a point.

Otherwise this is even more proof of a conspiracy.

Plus to suggest that they didn't see the plane fly over the building and also missed another plane fly over tree top level "seconds later" is beyond a stretch.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/citgowitnesses.jpg[/qimg]

I'd like to take issue with this fave pic of yours.

It is misleading to indicate the two flight paths by drawing two narrow lines; the jet's wingspan would be significantly wider. Why is this important? It narrows the distance between the south path and the alleged north path, perhaps to an extent that can be accounted for by normal error.

In other words, these witnesses may, based on their vantage point, as well as the speed of the aircraft (and its very rapid pass), be less precise than the photo above suggests.

Let me add, in regard to my recollection of witnessing a close-by helicopter crash years ago (which you never acknowledged, by the way), I can be pretty sure of its final, rapid dive. But it's quite possible if not likely I'd be nowhere exact if we were somehow able today to "go to the tape."

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, do you believe that there was another plane shadowing Flight 77 or did it just flyover? Just trying to make sure I understand your theory.

Since the c-130 pilot says he did not do this and NONE of the witnesses we found saw such a thing there is no reason to believe there were two planes.

This is clearly a cover story for those that saw the plane fly over.

They were simply told it was another plane and pointed to these other accounts.

 

[Blackwell]

When have I said otherwise?

They all have different descriptions of the plane. We left all the contradictions in their testimony and did not hide this one bit.

But the very simple and general claim of what side of the station the plane flew is the ONLY claim we are calling a smoking gun.

There is "no chance" it was on the physical damage flight path.

They only have to be somewhat correct in their approximate placement of the plane.

The chances that they are all so drastically incorrect in the exact same way are slim to none.

somewhat correct in their approximate placement of the plane? Those sure are some exacting standards you have there, Lyte.