Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Bobert]

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

No, I didn't think so

He claimed over and over before the release of the video that he was going to go to the authorities and that a Grand Jury would be called as a result of his film.
So now the film is out and he is asked "so who have you notified".
This seems a natural question to ask a researcher who claims time and time again to be after the truth.
It would seem natural that if someone were not lying and making stuff up that they would be proud to say who they brought the info to.
So what does Lyte do?
He clams up and refuses to say who he brought it to further mocking the victims of 9-11.

 

[jaydeehess]

from my post on page 8 which deals with the immediate subject of this thread and which lyte has not addressed.................

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

That is incorrect. The port wing and part of the starboard wing went in under the ceiling(floor level of the 2nd floor as denoted in the N.American way of things). That puts the bulk of the mass of the fuselage entering the second floor and lo and behold there is a 18 foot wide , basically round, hole in the center of the damaged area and on the second floor wall.

He also claims that the port engine is depicted as grinding through the ground at impact. Well the port engine did take a 'bite' out of a curb just in front of the building so it was low and just at ground level as it hit the building. This means that it was hitting that floor slab at a very slight angle which means that there was not much of a vertical component to the velocity of that engine. Then of course once through the wall, for which Lyte is kind enough to illustrate as two feet of limestone, brick and concrete, that engine would no longer be constrained to follow the wing as it was no longer connected to it. The engine would then be free to tumble, twist, or roll, coming apart as it did so, and I am quite sure it did a great deal of each along with subsequent impacts with anything inside the Pentagon. This engine would be hitting the wall with a very shallow vertcal angle. However the upper part of the cowling would hit the wall first. At this time the engine is also no longer connected to the wing. The net result would be at least a slight upward roll of the engine further reducing the vertical velocity component of this engine when it impacts the floor of the Pentagon.

He complains about the tail section not having punched through the wall as well. Once again though it should be pointed out that by the time the tail section reachs the wall it is no longer connected to the bulk of the aircraft and would be free to tumble, twist, rotate when it did impact the wall. The lower portion of that tail section would be entering through the already missing front wall portions while the upper section would be impacting still intact parts of the wall. The upper portion was also less massive than the lower portion and it is quite easy to see that this would result in the tail rotating into the hole (and breaking up in the process).

Lyte states that the damage to the front wall is consistent with explosives as he says that columns are blown outward. One problem with this is that Lyte cannot show that the columns are indeed leaning outward can he? He is using a one dimensional picture that shows the columns leaning but this is hardly suprising given that it also shows the whole structure above the first floor slumping. Those columns can just as easily be leaning inward. The wall above the first floor is quite likely bulging outward. The columns below have been broken and no longer support the upper mass. The upper mass is constrained from moving inward by the stiff flooring but it is unconstrained from going in the other direction. The mass of the upper floors is also being bourne in a catenary fashion by those floor and attached to intact interior columns. This would cause a rotation about those connections as the floor bow which would be seen from the outside as a bulge. Thus, in a one dimensional picture it might appear that the wall and the columns are leaning outward as if an explosion had occured within the building.

BUT, if there was an explosion that was capable of removing this amount of front wall and blowing outward then one should also note the debris from that outward moving wall debris all around the Pentagon. witnesses near the Pentagon should have noted huge amounts of shattered limestone, brick and concrete flying past them. The front wall is missing for approx 90 feet. The wall is 24 inches(2 feet) thick. Assuming that doors and windows take up approx half of the surface and that the floor is only 8 feet tall(in which I assume values designed to under estimate the volume of the missing wall all around IMHO) we have a volume of limestone, brick and concrete of
(90 X 2 X 8) X 0.5 = 720 cubic feet of debris that should be in front of the wall. To put this in perspective a large dump truck can carry 10-15 cubic yards(= 90 to 135 cubic feet) which means we should see 5 or so truckloads of debris ( if the wall is 10 feet high, or , if the windows and doors only take up 40% of the surface of the wall, then that's an additional truckload each) from that wall lieing about in front of the building. Is this in evidence in any photo?

 

[A W Smith]

It looks to me that the columns are cut and bent to the north (the left in that image) not outward. Which would be consistent with the plane impacting at an angle into the pentagon. With the right wing acting on the columns just like a huge scythe swung to the left. The tail section is essentially hollow and not designed in a structural manner to hold the weight of the plane in the air and cannot be compared to the wings which hold fuel.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well the anomalous physical evidence is what started all the questions to begin with. That's what inspired us to go to Arlington and find out what people saw in the first place.

Which makes little sense. If one sees anomalies in the physical evidence one would expect that a proper chain of investigation would be to get expert opinion on the perceived anomalies.

So as in most investigations....this one was inspired by suspicions that arose from examining physical evidence.

Anomalies that were subsequently not followed through on as far as investigation goes.

The eyewitness testimony simply confirmed our suspicions beyond our wildest imaginations.

Testimony that you sought in order to back up your preconception that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. You sought only those witnesses who could throw doubt on the path of the aircraft.

Realize that if the citgo witnesses are even somewhat correct in their placement of the plane that this PROVES the physical damage was staged which means the physical evidence IS the crime. Therefore the approach of this investigation has to adjust accordingly. We must look for anomalies.

You certainly do look for anomalies and attach great significance to any that may be stretched into backing your preconceived contention that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. You ignore any other anomalies such as Robert positioning the aircraft over the Citgo station or Sgt. Lagasse being unable to see the plane while entering his car and reaching for the radio. You utterly ignore or dismiss the eyewitnesses who stated that the plane took the path denoted by the downed poles. You utterly ignore or dismiss all witnesses who state that the aircraft hit the Pentagon and adhere to your contention that the plane flew over the Pentagon despite not being able to list even one witness who states that this occured, let alone show that the prepoderance of eye witness statements claim the plane flew over the Pentagon.

In other words, your contentions that the plane flew over the Pentagon and that the downed poles were faked, the aircraft debris was faked, and that the damage to the Pentagon was caused by pre-planted explosives is baseless and has absolutly no evidence to back it other than a minority of eye witness statements, which themselves could at best only cast doubt on one aspect, the path of the plane. These witnesses do not themselves agree on the path of the aircraft but beyond that, in order for them to be correct all other witnesses as to the path of the aircraft must be wrong. Your contentions come down to nothing but a fiction you have dreamt up.

 

[jaydeehess]

It looks to me that the columns are cut and bent to the north (the left in that image) not outward. Which would be consistent with the plane impacting at an angle into the pentagon. With the right wing acting on the columns just like a huge scythe swung to the left. The tail section is essentially hollow and not designed in a structural manner to hold the weight of the plane in the air and cannot be compared to the wings which hold fuel.

It just looks sooooo,,,,, obvious,,,,,,, doesn't it Mr.Smith!
Lyte just cannot bring himself to see it that way.

 

[A W Smith]

It just looks sooooo,,,,, obvious,,,,,,, doesn't it Mr.Smith!
Lyte just cannot bring himself to see it that way.

I am certain he sees it that way. But that wont sell DVDs. He is a ghoulish profiteer of tragedies and not to be confused as a researcher.

 

[uk_dave]

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".

That is interesting.

You see in the real world the version with the condensed summary of a particular claim, with all the bells and whistles to make it accessible to the layperson, is normally created from the longer, more dense 'researchers' version, which is aimed at academics and specialists who are more interested in hard data than a hip hop soundtrack and funky graphics.

Now, the fact that your 'researchers' edition is not ready for release, and hasn't been for some time now, makes one suspect that perhaps it is not going to be the hard, dry, no frills, heavy on facts and low on entertainment version it should be.

That your much vaunted 'hollywood' voice over artiste doesn't appear on the 'smoking gun' version also leads one to suspect that the 'researchers edition' is not going to be what we have so far been lead to believe it will be.

So, here's my theory:

The 'smoking gun' version was produced to test the water and raise some cash.

The 'Researchers Edition' will be a do-over of the SG version, in which you will attempt to counter the criticisms you have received on the SG version.

The 'smoking gun' doesn't have the 'hollywood' voice over because you couldn't afford it, but hoped to be able to by the time you completed the 'RE' version because you hoped to have sold a few dvd's and got some media appearances under your belt by then.

That your SG isn't making the waves you had predicted prior to its release, seems to suggest that not only do you have an awful lot of work to do in order to make the pentacon (second edition) workable, but you haven't raised enough money yet to pay for the 'hollywood' voiceover.

How's that sound?

 

[I Am He]

Lyte, you say that there were abnormalities in the official report and then you went down to D.C. to investigate them? Can you please tell me what credentials you have in that field. Were you ever in law enforcement at one time? Were you ever employed by any investigation firm that investigates air disasters? Do you have any type of schooling in that field? Did you ever take any human behavior courses while you were in school? Last but not least, how far did you get in math classes?? I would really appreciate your answers to these questions, because they sure could clear up a few things.

Thank You
I Am He

 

[Disbelief]

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.

OK. You do realize that it would have been impossible for a C-130 to shadow a jet anyway.

Now, are you saying that the witnesses were told that the jetliner streaking away at 500+ was really just a C-130? You do know that C-130s aren't that fast? You do know that they are not jet engine planes but prop planes? You do know all you would have to ask a witness is whether it had props or jets? Yuo know that there is a distinct difference in sound between the two types of planes?

 

[Bobert]

Lyte, you say that there were abnormalities in the official report and then you went down to D.C. to investigate them? Can you please tell me what credentials you have in that field. Were you ever in law enforcement at one time? Were you ever employed by any investigation firm that investigates air disasters? Do you have any type of schooling in that field? Did you ever take any human behavior courses while you were in school? Last but not least, how far did you get in math classes?? I would really appreciate your answers to these questions, because they sure could clear up a few things.

Thank You
I Am He

He wont answer this anyway but if he does you will get a whole lot of no's to your questions.
I will field the ones that I do know for sure:
NO credentials in that field
NO law enforcement experience
NO employment by any firm that investigates air disasters
NO degree

 

[Belz...]

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.

It's a good thing that reality trumps belief.

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.

Thanks. That sums it up.

Otherwise this is even more proof of a conspiracy.

No, it isn't. Even NO proof against you isn't proof in your favour, especially if said proof isn't necessarily expected.

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

Apparently you've never studied memory.

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

"Remotely" as in, beign wrong about what direction the plane was coming from ?

 

[Belz...]

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

Precisely.

He simply saw the cab after the fact.

He also didn't see the evil government men planting the evidence, did he ?

There is NOTHING impossible about this at all.

Oh, yes there is. Because then you have to assume that SOMEHOW all the evidence was planted. It means that this konspirazy is so complex that it had to fake and fake and fake, while all they had to do was fly a damn remote 757 into this building.

 

[CurtC]

Bobert, I think your sniping at Lyte is not helpful. He's done a good job of staying civil here, and I would like to see other members treat him courteously personally, while holding a hard line on facts and evidence. Let's expect him to address those, and keep the sniping out of it, please.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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?

I knew it was a matter of time before one of you broke down and straight up called them liars.

I never said that they will no longer speak with anyone.

I might have said that I doubt that they will because they are likely scared for their jobs or even their lives over the implications of what they saw.

Why don't you try contacting them and call them liars for profit directly?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Bobert, I think your sniping at Lyte is not helpful. He's done a good job of staying civil here, and I would like to see other members treat him courteously personally, while holding a hard line on facts and evidence. Let's expect him to address those, and keep the sniping out of it, please.

Poor gent is upset because he lost his job over being obsessed with harassing me because of my political beliefs.

You'd think for the sake of his sanity he would let it go and move on with his life.

I guess he finds comfort in the fact that so many other people here feel like he does about my beliefs.

Too bad he can't see what a raving lunatic he looks like even to you folks.

 

[DavidJames]

I knew it was a matter of time before one of you broke down and straight up called them liars.

I never said that they will no longer speak with anyone.

I might have said that I doubt that they will because they are likely scared for their jobs or even their lives over the implications of what they saw.

Why don't you try contacting them and call them liars for profit directly?

Please highlight the the comments in A W Smiths post where he calls them liars.

You are the one who claims you provided your "evidence" to the media and authorities but refuses to provide to whom. I think you are the only liar here.

 

[Belz...]

I knew it was a matter of time before one of you broke down and straight up called them liars.

As opposed to you calling the other witnesses... er... what are they again ? Ah, yes. They've been TOLD to say something they know isn't true.

Well I guess that makes them honest folk, doesn't it, Lyte ?

 

[CosCos]

Lyte Trip, please explain this:

Your theory contends that the “plan” was always for the plane to fly south of the citgo correct? By taking the northern flight path that was essentially a mistake that the conspirators made correct?

What I don’t understand is if the plan was always to be the southern route, why would they have rigged the light poles anyway? Wouldn’t they have been struck on cue? Or would the plane have flown over the lightpoles which would then have been exploded anyway? Or did the conspirators realize the error in the flightpath and dispatched commandoes immediately to rig/blowup the lightpoles within nanoseconds?

Have you thought through that aspect of your theory?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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.

I could just as easily say...

"Yes, they remember it being on the north side of the station, but that is a simple perception problem.

Point is that ALL of them most definitely saw the actual plane hit the Pentagon. This is undeniable."

...and be correct. You are being very picky about which statements of your witnesses you choose to believe. I would be interested in knowing

a) Why you choose to believe and dismiss the statements that you do?

b) If you think doing so is a very scientific way of gathering data?

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.

You have no problem with this, but you have a hard time believing all the other witnesses who say otherwise? Everyone else says it flew to the south.

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

Even for one of them to do this would be strange but all 99? No way."

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.

Not true. Eyewitness testimony is horribly uncertain, especially when faced with the unexpected.

I remember an experiment my English teacher did in 12th grade. He came around the classroom and showed each of us a card (the same card to everyone) from a deck of cards. He then asked us what the card was. Simple, right?

Half the class said it was the King of Spades. The other half said it was the King of Hearts. Both halves of the class were willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that is what they saw.

Two mutually impossible situations, yet only one card was shown. In fact, I recall a very loud argument that nearly came to blows, with many insults tossed back and forth, because no one wanted to believe they saw the wrong thing. What I'm saying is, the eyewitness testimony of 4 people doesn't hold the weight you think it does.

(For those of you who want to work out the card mystery for yourselves, I've put the answer in this spoiler)

The teacher had taken the King of Hearts and colored the hearts in with a black marker. Some students saw the shape, and claimed "hearts", others saw the color and claimed "spades".

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

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/327a1-1.jpg[/qimg]

Would a pilot on this thread be able to take the location where Lyte claims the plane pulled up, combine it with the speed of the plane, and figure out..

a) if the plane could clear the Pentagon?

b) how much G-force the pilot would experience doing so?

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

That's the first thing you've said right this whole thread. They were remotely correct. The plane was headed in the direction of the Pentagon.

 

[A W Smith]

Who called who a liar?

I knew it was a matter of time before one of you broke down and straight up called them liars.

I never said that they will no longer speak with anyone.

I might have said that I doubt that they will because they are likely scared for their jobs or even their lives over the implications of what they saw.

Why don't you try contacting them and call them liars for profit directly?

Where did I say that? YOU however....

What about them?

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.

Prove it came from the Pentagon.

Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.

I went back a bit into your post history. i could have pulled many more examples of YOU calling witnesses and investigators Liars. This is not even including your Lloyd thread.