Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[A W Smith]

lyte you have convinced no one. Your witnesses are simply wrong. if i am to believe them than what they saw was the shadow of the plane as deduced from the suns azimuth for that location on that day at that time. I don't know why you are wasting your time here. Your delusion that the light poles were a set up is laughable at best. Why they would need to go through all that effort when they could have the flight make a steeper dive? why take the risk of someone noticing the light pole setup? Why make the generator take a hit? Why add the risk of complicating the supposed conspiracy? I don't even believe that you believe all this nonsense yourself. You are simply on the tour to sell a book/movie/DVD/speaking engagement. another profiteer on the ct bandwagon. Even your peers (if you can call them that) know it is all BS. you are A modern day charlatan. I find it curious when you state that your so called witnesses will no longer speak to anyone. So when they drew their lines on your photographs with that pen did they also sign your confidentiality agreement as a condition to share in your proceeds? all I can say is.. Loathsome. simply loathsome.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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.

I am not claiming they are exactly precise. I am claiming that they would simply be pointing in the other direction in reference to where the plane was because that would be where they saw and heard it.

Here is an overhead shot that also indicates the 124 foot wingspan of the plane:

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."

Irrelevant analogy.

The vantage point of the witnesses and the simple right or left claim they are making is hugely different.

This analogy taken from another jref'er real life experience is much more accurate:

Hypothetical example: 3 pedestrians in the same general area that they
all frequent on a daily basis all witness a fatal car accident on an
intersection a 1/2 a block north of them. If each were questioned
about the incident on location some time after the fact it would stand
to reason that they may have different stories about specific details
like what type of cars were involved, the color, exactly how the
accident happened etc. But if they all place the accident on the same
intersection that was 1/2 block north of them rather than south of them
the interviewer could obviously be fairly certain that the probability that
this very general yet 100% corroborated claim is correct.

Although Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse all had different descriptions of the plane they all saw it fly by in the same general vicinity and they all frequent that gas station/area daily. Does it really seem feasible to you that they could all be so ridiculously mistaken in the exact same way about such a simple claim? You see they all would have had to simultaneously remember the complete opposite of reality. The physical damage flight path is drastically different from what they all saw. Lagasse's vantage point was such that he wouldn't have seen it at all through the building on the south
side.

Plus.....they do NOT have to be accurate in their placement of the plane. They only need to be remotely correct.

 

[CurtC]

The major inconsistency I see in your video's witnesses is that Lagasse clearly remembered the taxi and the white car, and that the plane went directly over them, but he places them quite a bit to the North of where we know, absolutely, for certain, that they actually were. I wonder how he would reconcile his memory if someone were to show him all the photos from that day, showing those two cars sitting helter-skelter on the overpass? Too bad the person interviewing him wasn't interested in the answer, but only to bolster his own preconceptions.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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

This statement is fact and is exactly why this is such a smoking gun.

There is zero room for error in the physical damage flight path.

The plane HAD to be completely on the south side of the station.

If it was ANYWHERE near the north side of the station it could not have hit the light poles.

 

[CurtC]

Although Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse all had different descriptions of the plane they all saw it fly by in the same general vicinity

I see you've left out your fourth witness from the video, Edward the Asian guy from the car shop. Are you now dismissing his description because you realize that it's inconsistent with a North-of-the-Citgo path? That's been pretty well established by now, that an airliner could not fly over Edward, then North of the Citgo, and then make it to the impact point on the Pentagon.

 

[Lyte Trip]

The major inconsistency I see in your video's witnesses is that Lagasse clearly remembered the taxi and the white car, and that the plane went directly over them, but he places them quite a bit to the North of where we know, absolutely, for certain, that they actually were. I wonder how he would reconcile his memory if someone were to show him all the photos from that day, showing those two cars sitting helter-skelter on the overpass? Too bad the person interviewing him wasn't interested in the answer, but only to bolster his own preconceptions.

He did not see the plane hit light poles, admitted that he couldn't even see the light poles from that location, and could not see the cab from his location either.

He simply saw the cab after the fact. There is no reason he would remember the exact placement of the cab or take note of this seemingly insignificant detail.

It makes sense that he would insist the cab was within the flight path that he saw.

Sorry I didn't predict the future and determine what he would say so I could bring all relevant images to the interview.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I see you've left out your fourth witness from the video, Edward the Asian guy from the car shop. Are you now dismissing his description because you realize that it's inconsistent with a North-of-the-Citgo path? That's been pretty well established by now, that an airliner could not fly over Edward, then North of the Citgo, and then make it to the impact point on the Pentagon.

You are incorrect.

Edward corroborates their claim 100% because he has the plane definitively passing over to the north side of Columbia Pike.

This fact is also irreconcilable with the physical damage flight path and puts the plane on course for the north of the citgo.

There is NOTHING impossible about this at all.

 

[Pardalis]

You are incorrect.

You remind me so much of him when you say that.

 

[Blackwell]

This statement is fact and is exactly why this is such a smoking gun.

There is zero room for error in the physical damage flight path.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Obviously, the flight path was what it was. I'll assume you mean that the physical damage needs to match up with the actual flight path, which I think goes without saying.

The plane HAD to be completely on the south side of the station.

Agreed.

If it was ANYWHERE near the north side of the station it could not have hit the light poles.

Agreed.

However, none of your above points mean that your witnesses were 100% correct in their recollection of events.

 

[CurtC]

Edward corroborates their claim 100% because he has the plane definitively passing over to the north side of Columbia Pike.

This fact is also irreconcilable with the physical damage flight path and puts the plane on course for the north of the citgo.

There is NOTHING impossible about this at all.

We've been over this before. If the plane went over Edward, then went north of the Citgo, there is no way it could then make it to the damage point at the Pentagon. If it were flying a lot slower than everyone says it was, and if it did a very hard bank as it passed by the Citgo, then perhaps it might pull that off. But then, it would be in the wrong attitude to pull up out of its shallow dive and fly over the Pentagon.

Any reasonable estimates of the plane's speed and the lack of descriptions of a severe bank by any witnesses make your path impossible by a large margin. You can't get around that. Either LaGasse, Turcios, and Brooks were incorrect in their description of which side it passed on, or Edward was incorrect in his memory that it flew right over him. If the former three were correct, the plane would have had to fly a couple of blocks north of where Edward was.

 

[CurtC]

You are spouting out unsupported nonsense.

I've done the math, and I haven't seen anyone point out where it's in error. Do you want me to drag it back out?

 

[Arus808]

why has lyte never addressed that all image of his flight path , in all the pics contradict each other?

Geometry Lyte, you know the subject you never took in HIgh school

 

[Architect]

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.

Seriously Lyte; have you been through university level education, because you seem to be missing key points here?

The issues is not the terminology for substructural elements, although your apparent failure to grasp the basics of building construction does give cause for concern since it is central to your underlying argument on this point. Rather you choose not to answer points put to you about (say) the deformation patterns anticipated or the effect of solum infil on impacts.

Moreover you've not responded to other issues such as the adequacy (or otherwise) of the photographic evidence of any damage to the floor slab, the extent to which subsequent clearance operations may have obscured any damage, and the effects which impact vector and engine construction may have had.

Are you really following the points put to you?

 

[DavidJames]

...we will prove it.

Would you like to prove that you've submitted your "evidence" to the media and authorities.

No, I didn't think so

 

[ihaunter]

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."

He is NOT saying the fireball obstructed his view of the impact. He is saying that his view of the impact was obstructed (by something unnamed) and all he could see was the much larger fireball which was not obstructed, or more accurately, only partially obstructed. Note the word "still". He was most assuredly NOT talking about the newly formed fireball.

 

[jhunter1163]

Lyte:

I've mentioned this anecdote before, but I feel it bears repeating. On May 18, 1980, I witnessed the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. I was about thirty miles due north of the mountain and saw everything; the landslide, the explosion, the ash plume ascending (well, not so much of the ash plume because I was engaged in getting the hell out of there as fast as I could). From my vantage point, it appeared that the explosion issued from the north side of the mountain. However, physical and seismological evidence shows that the blast actually emanated from the northeast side of the mountain.

Which should be given more weight? My story or the physical evidence?

 

[jaydeehess]

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."

"still" what Lyte? Still obstructed by the fireball? That makes no sense whatsoever. Still obstructed by the overpass? That makes sense. However , it could not be obstructed by the overpass unless it had passed over it which is where the light pole flight path takes it.

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

Oh, I agree, he was not under the plane but in his statement he is basically stating that he was. He states that the plane went between the two trees which is only a couple dozen feet from where he was. Once again, if he could see both engines it would have been where he says it is. We agree that it wasn't.

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

Yes, and your insistence that it was to the north flies in the face of other things he says.

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

No, all of them say it was to the north. Only that is undeniable.

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

Many details that corroborate the idea that it was a large AA Boeing.

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.

All of them including Lagasse could have seen the plane on the south side. Remember that Brooks was located well away from the station and Lagasse could not have seen the plane during part of the time as he was getting into his patrol car and grabbing the radio.

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

However, their recollections do, in places, not agree with each other. All of them state that the plane was on a course to hit the Pentagon or that they actually saw it hit the Pentagon. Only Robert says the plane rose up. Not a one of them says that they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

What do other witnesses say? No one, no one at all, any where, saw a plane fly over the Pentagon, not on the side of impact nor on the opposite side of the Pentagon/Potomac. This is a very large jet, going very fast and barely higher above the ground than its windspan is wide.

It is patently clear then , from the preponderance of the eyewitness statements that the plane that flew at the Pentagon did not flyover the Pentagon. It is obvious by the preponderance of the eyewitness statements that the plane did not rise but continued to move desend. It is obvious by the preponderance of the eyewitness statements that the plane impacted the Pentagon. It is obvious by the preponderance of ALL the eyewitnesses statements that the plane flew to the south of the Citgo station.
With eyewitness statements one must rely on what is common in the preponderance of the eyewitness statements whereas you have chosen one aspect that is in the minority of those statements.

Did you start this exercise with a mind to understand what the eyewitnees statements would show? No! You have stated that you found the physical evidence puzzling and then went forward to find corroboration of what you perceived as anomolies. You did not find corroboration of the anomolies you perceived in the physical evidence at the site of destruction. Instead you found anomolous eye witness statements and then constructed a fiction to fit your perceived anomolies, namely that the plane flew towards the Pentagon at an angle that is in direct contradiction to the preponderance of the eyewitness statements and then flew over the building which contradicts not only the preponderance of the eyewitness statements but All of them.

why do you make all of this up?

You have 4 who say it went north but their statements are far from unassailable. Robert did not, could not see the plane coming in, he had to get east of the canopy first, Lagasse did not, could not see the plane fly past the station as he was entering his car at that time. Brooks' statement suggests that he had the plane in sight all the way from when he first sighted it until it hit the Pentagon (was that possible?). Still, you have 4 of many witnesses to the plane's flight path and have chosen to interview only these 4 and not anyone who saw the plane anywhere else.

 

[Go_]

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.

No, you've got that backwards. The Citgo witnesses would have heard flight 77 first but wouldn't have seen it because the Citgo station blocked their view. In looking up they then spotted another plane to the north of the Citgo station -- but this plane was not flight 77.

William Lagasse clearly states in your video that he saw a plane slam into the Pentagon a fraction of a second, "about a half-a-second," after he spotted a plane at the Citgo. This is physically impossible. This means that if a plane slammed into the Pentagon a fraction of a second after Lagasse spotted a plane north of the Citgo, then the plane Lagasse spotted north of the Citgo was NOT the plane that slammed into the Pentagon.

Lagasse also states in your interview that no driver southbound on HWY 27 could have seen the plane hit the Pentagon but for "that long [snaps his fingers]" because "of the trees over there" yet that many southbound drivers on HWY 27 do report seeing the plane before it hit the Pentagon. How do we explain the apparent contradiction?

We explain it like this: Lagasse and the southbound drivers on 27 are referring to two different planes.

The "shadowing" plane theory also accounts for the fact that three of your 4 witnesses did not recognize the plane as an AA jet. Only one of them did and I submit that that one was the most likely to have had his recollection influenced by subsequent events that he saw on TV or the internet, read in the papers, heard on the radio, etc.

How is it possible that none of the other three noticed the distinctive red, white, and blue stripes that run the length of the plane? One of your witnesses (Robert Turcios) even insisted that there was no stripe on the plane.

Turcios also says that the plane "pulled up" before it got to the Pentagon.

Joel Sucherman, an editor for USAToday who also witnessed the Pentagon crash, says that he saw a second plane off to the west climb steeply and make a sharp turn after he saw AA flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.

Could this be Robert's plane?
--------------------------------------------------

So what does all this mean?

It means that your claim that it is "impossible" for people to have seen a plane north of the Citgo and for a plane to have crashed into the Pentagon at about the same time is based on a fallacy. It's based on the fallacy of the false dilemma.

What I've outlined here is just one "possible" alternative scenario. There are others, as well, including that your witnesses' remembrances are simply mistaken.
--------------------------------------------------

PS When will the much-anticipated "The Pentacon: Researchers' Edition" be released? Why the delay? I want to see those other interviews.

 

[Mince]

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.

And God may have willed it on the Pentagon lawn. However, I'm interested in fact, not wild speculation. Why did you not ask your witnesses, on camera, about debris. Why, when they told you they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, something completely contrary to your thesis, did you not investigate their claims more thoroughly. Remember, there are four corroborating witnesses, in your own video, who claim the plane hit the Pentagon. If all four were fooled into "thinking" the plane hit the Pentagon when it actually did not, maybe all four were fooled into "thinking" the plane flew on the North side of the NEX when it did not.

 

[Bobert]

Seriously Lyte; have you been through university level education, because you seem to be missing key points here?

The issues is not the terminology for substructural elements, although your apparent failure to grasp the basics of building construction does give cause for concern since it is central to your underlying argument on this point. Rather you choose not to answer points put to you about (say) the deformation patterns anticipated or the effect of solum infil on impacts.

Moreover you've not responded to other issues such as the adequacy (or otherwise) of the photographic evidence of any damage to the floor slab, the extent to which subsequent clearance operations may have obscured any damage, and the effects which impact vector and engine construction may have had.

Are you really following the points put to you?

Lyte hold NO DEGREE!
He complains to the mods about me posting truths like this so we shall see how long this lasts.