Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Lyte Trip]

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.

Only one of them said they saw the light poles get hit in 2001 and he set the record straight for everyone on video tape in 2006.

He did not see the light poles get hit.

There is nothing else contradictory in their testimony from 2001 particularly in regards to the north side claim which is the only thing we are calling a smoking gun anyway.

 

[Lyte Trip]

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

Still waiting.

I have never claimed to be an expert.

If you are suggesting these things would prevent a floor from being damaged after a several ton jet engine is dug into it as 500mph + then so be it.

I have never claimed our observations of the physical damage anomalies to be proof.

Merely that they they were suspicious to us and led us to dig deeper and find the proof.

Even if some of those suspicious details happen to have perfectly valid explanations that does not negate the proof that we have obtained.

 

[Pardalis]

Let's have a crack at it again, step by step.

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

So are you saying that the North of the Citgo flightpath was part of the plot, even though it contradicts the physical damage they themselves planted?

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.

Explain this sentence, it doesn't make sense. Are you saying the plane that flew over the Pentagon was deliberately flown off course for the benefit of a couple witnesses, specifically at the CITGO?

Why is the CITGO station so important in this conspiracy?

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

Which would make more scene, but still makes this entire plot really stupid.

 

[beachnut]

Only one of them said they saw the light poles get hit in 2001 and he set the record straight for everyone on video tape in 2006.

He did not see the light poles get hit.

There is nothing else contradictory in their testimony from 2001 particularly in regards to the north side claim which is the only thing we are calling a smoking gun anyway.

Yes there is. You are not being very truthful with the testimony. Their 2001 testimony is contrary to all your conclusions. You must of missed it, you need to listen to it where they say 77 hit the Pentagon, and they said it in 2001. No coaching, no agenda, just the truth in 2001.

 

[Calcas]

Your wish is my command.

Missed you at the conference.

Did you get a flat tire on the way?

I'm glad you enjoyed my little joke. In case you didn't know, I don't live within 1000 miles of Ca anymore. But, you sure got your panties in a knot when I said I was going to crash it without paying, didn't you?

Anyway, good to see you here and posting somewhat rationally.

BTW, too bad about your partner in crime Merc. It seems his latest meltdown at lcf has gotten him banned forever this time, no?

P.S. to Bobert (who I don't even know)...you need to chill with the personal attacks and info or you will be GONE from here forever. And, these Mods can, and will, ensure that you can't come back.

 

[Mince]

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.

Nope. Pardalis is correct. That post of yours was utterly nonsensical. I was going to post likewise, but I feared I may have missed something. You now have double corroboration about your post not making sense. Makes it a pretty solid deal, now doesn't it?

 

[Go_]

Lyte Trip evidently has not thought through the implications of his claim, Pardalis.

Here:

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.

He assumes the very thing he tries to prove; namely, that a plane flew over the Pentagon.

But the fact of the matter is there are no witnesses -- NONE -- who claim to have seen a plane fly over (as opposed to in the general area of) the Pentagon.

Even his second bit of speculation (that is, that the plane was 'slightly' off course by accident) makes no rational sense.

Lyte and others argue that a skilled, experienced pilot flew flight 77. How likely is it that such a pilot would miss the predetermined flight path by such a margin even after making two passes at it on a clear day?

 

[Calcas]

Nope. Pardalis is correct. That post of yours was utterly nonsensical. I was going to post likewise, but I feared I may have missed something. You now have double corroboration about your post not making sense. Makes is a pretty solid deal, now doesn't it?

OK, I now make it TRIPLE corroboration.

One more and it will be QUADRUPLE corroborated.

Sound familiar Lyte?

 

[Bobert]

It is my pleasure to QUADRUPLE corroborate it!

 

[Qubit]

I would like to go back to the light poles for a second. Correct me if I am wrong but Lyte contests they were "planted". How were they planted? I have read other conspiracy theorists say they were "blown out by their base". Is this your contention Lyte? These light poles have serious damage. Which means they would have to be pre-damaged. Also, there is no evidence of damage caused by explosives. Finally, if they were somehow timed to coincide with the flight, how does one not recognize light poles falling for no reason? Don't you think Mr. England would have noticed such a momentous event of light poles falling for no reason? Does he not contradict your "North Side" claim? It appears you are running out of staws to grasp at.

 

[Go_]

Don't you think Mr. England would have noticed such a momentous event of light poles falling for no reason? Does he not contradict your "North Side" claim? It appears you are running out of staws to grasp at.

Lyte Trip strongly implies that England is a mental defective who is easily duped.



I'd like to hear Lyte Trip definitively respond to the point first brought up by CosCos and then echoed by Pardalis and others.

The perpetrators of 9/11 would not have knocked down those five light poles if they knew that the FDR of flight 77 would definitively prove that flight 77 could not possibly have knocked them down.

Yet, Lyte Trip claims this is precisely what they did.

This is an entirely implausible claim that he has yet to justify.

 

[A W Smith]

Lyte Trip strongly implies that England is a mental defective who is easily duped.



I'd like to hear Lyte Trip definitively respond to the point first brought up by CosCos and then echoed by Pardalis and others.

The perpetrators of 9/11 would not have knocked down those five light poles if they knew that the FDR of flight 77 would definitively prove that flight 77 could not possibly have knocked them down.

Yet, Lyte Trip claims this is precisely what they did.

This is an entirely implausible claim that he has yet to justify.

Even if he uses the canard that the pole bases were charged with mini explosives. what bent the poles into arcs?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.
..................
Merely that they they were suspicious to us and led us to dig deeper and find the proof.

You perceive the condition of the floor as an 'anomalie' but have utterly failed to examine whether or not it is. You contacted no relevent expert for an opinion, and did no personal research to corroborate your uninformed contention that it is anomalous for this engine to have smashed through a 24 inch thick wall of stone, brick and concrete without causing severe damage to the concrete flooring in the loaction you assume it would have hit and using a picture that contains a large amount of other rubble on that concrete slab. You have then utterly failed to illustrate how this is anomolous. your inexpert, 'common sense', personal incredulity is not sufficient.

You did not 'dig deeper' , you changed subjects. You then operated upon the preconception that this and other aspects were 'anomolous' and strove soley to back up the contention that there were anomolies. You did not operate in a fashion that would suggest you wanted the truth but that you wished to corroborate an already faulty assumption. For this you chose one of the types of evidence that is the absolute most likely way to find contradictions, eyewitness testimony. Now you take the 4 contrarian reports from amoung many others and proclaim that this is 'smoking gun' evidence AND devise a senario of a flyover that has absolutly no evidence of occuring whatsoever, no physical evidence and no eyewitness testimony. NONE Lyte, none.

How can you possibly propose this as a probable senario when you have nothing at all to base it on?

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.

In reality absolutly no one saw any plane fly over the Pentagon and no one saw another aircraft flying low and fast near the Pentagon. The C-130 is almost as different from a 757 than one could get and the one in the area was several thousand feet away from the Pentagon at all times. No one puts it close let alone on an intercept path with the Pentagon or anywhere close to (less than several thousand feet) Flight 77.

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.

Which might make a tiny bit of sense if the one that flew over was on the path of physical damage while the other one wasn't since it is the path of physical damage that is to be the 'official' story anyway.

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

If there were any significant chance that the plane would be so off course as you suggest it could be(wildy off course given the abilities of aircraft navigation)then it would simply be better to not have a separate level of deception as to attempt to fake the pole damage.

Neither senario is very likely at all.

 

[jaydeehess]

Once again with the physical evidence at the Pentagon;

If explosives blew the ground floor wall out then where is the 5 or so truckloads of limestone, brick, concrete and steel window frames that should be on the ground in front of the Pentagon?

You have often called the aircraft debris in front of the building insufficient to account for an aircraft hitting the building. Where is the wall rubble? The aircraft was at least purported to be moving into the building, your supposition though would have the wall debris moving outward.

You have often stated that the aircraft debris found outside the Pentagon was planted. Would you now contend that a large percentage, at least, of the several truckloads of wall rubble was simultaneously and surreptitiously removed?

 

[Mince]

It is my pleasure to QUADRUPLE corroborate it!

There you have it, Lyte, quadruple corroboration. As you know, proof doesn't get any stronger than that. There is no debate. Are you now prepared to concede that your post was nonsensical and issue appropriate apologies?

 

[Go_]

Lyte Trip's "theory" has been demolished.

Should we release a video and maybe call it "ThePentaconcon."

 

[Mince]

Lyte Trip's "theory" has been demolished.

Should we release a video and maybe call it "ThePentaconcon."

No. That will just prompt him to make a video called The Pentaconconcon, prompting us to make a video called The Pentaconconconcon, prompting him to make a video called The Pentaconconconconcon, prompting us to make a video called The Pentaconconconconconcon...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

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, delineating north and south. 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.

I felt it important to add the bolded clarification above, even though you have not responded.

 

[gumboot]

No. That will just prompt him to make a video called The Pentaconconcon, prompting us to make a video called The Pentaconconconcon, prompting him to make a video called The Pentaconconconconcon, prompting us to make a video called The Pentaconconconconconcon...

At which point I would release The Penta and pwn you all!

-Gumboot

 

[Bobert]

I wonder how many recuts the Researchers Edition will contain?