Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Regnad Kcin]

Irrelevant analogy.

Of course it isn't, but quite similar. Just as with your vaunted witnesses, I too remember watching a close-by (helicopter) crash. I can describe it and could even show you on the scene where the aircraft plunged from the sky and its impact point (with resultant fireball). However, it's been over 10 years, and there's no guarantee I'd be precise in my recollection. Especially if the physical evidence was not in agreement.

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

Except it isn't. It's been many years since the event, an event that was not only a surprise to witnesses on the ground, but was over and done with in a moment. Plenty of room for inexact recollections and resultant descriptions. Which is why we rely on the enormous amount of physical evidence present at the Pentagon.

 

[Arus808]

also, terrain features have changed since 911 . Where trees once stood, are no longer there.

they could have been using a tree for reference, and being that it was not there on the day of interview, they could have used another "tree" thinking it was the same tree from that day.

That fudged me up one time when I was tryhing to remember where a building was, because of a unique looking tree that was in front of it. The owners of the property decided to "change" it, and it made me miss the building.

 

[Bobert]

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.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal information.

This feud between the two of you needs to stop. Either it ends voluntarily or by banning. I don't care which.

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

 

[mortimer]

How's xxxxxx treating you Lyte?
You still there?
Ext xxxxxx still?
www.xxxxxxxxx.com

Reported.

 

[Mince]

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?

Perhaps all of these bits of logic, which I'm sure the producers of the video have already given consideration to, are covered in the Researcher's Edition.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

Incidentally, I have no Photoshop skills whatsoever. If I did, I would place a straight line on the above picture, in a plane to coincide with the directional compass in the lower left corner. It would reach from the compass, go through the Citgo, and terminate towards the right of the image.

Having done so, it would reasonably indicate that much of the true (red) path of the plane was already north of the Citgo once it had passed the landmark. And it was also traveling "left to right", in respect to north, on its way to the Pentagon.

Setting aside the issue of innacurate memory, it is quite easy to see how your witnesses could make their claim and have it be consistent with the true (red) flight path. Very easy.

 

[Pardalis]

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?

Good question.

 

[Architect]

I notice he's still strangely silent on the whole foundation thing. Hmmmmm.....

 

[Lyte Trip]

I notice he's still strangely silent on the whole foundation thing. Hmmmmm.....

Unless you are claiming the floor was made of solid diamond the point I made still stands regardless of the terminology that is used to describe what the left engine of the plane would have dug into according to the official story.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal information.

This feud between the two of you needs to stop. Either it ends voluntarily or by banning. I don't care which.

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

Please take note that I have only ignored his perpetual personal attacks and revealing of personal information about me until this one post which was not directly to him.

I will continue to ignore him so please don't misconstrue his attacks against me as a "feud".

 

[Architect]

That's it? That's your proof? "Because I said so"?

 

[Go_]

Excellent point, CosCos.

Your same point put slightly different might ask:

Since none of us dispute that five light poles were observed to be down along a fairly precise flight path south of the Citgo and that the perpetrators of 9/11, one way or another, were responsible for their being down, let's start with those agreed-upon facts.

Since the 9/11 perpetrators severed only those five light poles at exactly the height at which they were severed and no others, it's clear that the perpetrators of 9/11 had planned for the plane to take a fairly precise flight path south of the Citgo toward the Pentagon.

How likely is it, then, that this same group of conspirators who clearly planned and went to great lengths to make the downed light poles a key part of the evidence for the plane's alleged crash into the Pentagon, that this same group of conspirators then flew a completely wrong flight path to the Pentagon?

. . . and this after circling the area once? . . . and this on a day when visibility was perfect? . . . and this, if Lyte Trip's hypothesis is correct, by a very skilled pilot?

Does this seem the least bit probable?

 

[Lyte Trip]

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?

Yes we have thought about this.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over.

It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.

Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident.

The former is more likely.

 

[Calcas]

Please take note that I have only ignored his perpetual personal attacks and revealing of personal information about me until this one post which was not directly to him.

I will continue to ignore him so please don't misconstrue his attacks against me as a "feud".

Lyte, please go to the "Pentagon Flyover Illusion" thread.

I'm sure many of us would love to see a reply from you.

 

[Lyte Trip]

That's it? That's your proof? "Because I said so"?

The proof is the corroborated first hand testimony.

The observations via photos of anomalies in the physical evidence is what made us suspicious enough to go find out what the witnesses saw.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, please go to the "Pentagon Flyover Illusion" thread.

I'm sure many of us would love to see a reply from you.

Your wish is my command.

Missed you at the conference.

Did you get a flat tire on the way?

 

[Architect]

The proof is the corroborated first hand testimony.

The observations via photos of anomalies in the physical evidence is what made us suspicious enough to go find out what the witnesses saw.

No, you've deliberately evaded the point. You were asked to address issues such as solum backfill, deformation patterns, and so on.

Still waiting.

 

[Pardalis]

Yes we have thought about this.

The answer is that they likely planned it this way on purpose for people who saw the plane fly over.

It makes it easier to suggest a different plane hit the building if the plane people saw fly over is not perfectly on the correct flight path.

Or the plane could have been a bit off course on accident.

The former is more likely.

I keep reading and rereading this post.

It doesn't make any sense, none whatsoever.

 

[beachnut]

The proof is the corroborated first hand testimony.

The observations via photos of anomalies in the physical evidence is what made us suspicious enough to go find out what the witnesses saw.

Your witnesses saw the plane hit, and the poles hit. They said this in 2001. You have made this all up. You cannot ignore their statements in 2001 as you are doing. Their testimony has to include what they said in 2001, or you are just telling lies and making up stories to sell your ideas on your road trips. I will publish their stories in their own voices again unless you stop telling lies.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I keep reading and rereading this post.

It doesn't make any sense, none whatsoever.

Think about the cover story of another plane "shadowing" the AA jet and then veering off over the pentagon just after the explosion and perhaps it will make more sense to you.

Or perhaps you just need to read it a few more times.