Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[I Am He]

Lyte

Could you please answer the questions I asked you in Post #428, Please.

If you don't remember it, this should refresh your memory:

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

 

[Belz...]

Unless you are claiming the floor was made of solid diamond [snip]

WHAT ? Diamonds are HARD, but weak. Don't try to smash a rock on a diamond, please.

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

"Likely" ? How so ?

So, basically, these idiotic konspiratorz had this HUGE plan going on, with split-second timing; enough to fool all onlookers into thinking a plane hit the building... and they BLEW IT by having the plane approach from the wrong angle. Boy, it's a good think twoofers are smart!

The proof is the corroborated first hand testimony.

The minority of the first hand testimony, I might add. And I'd ALSO add that this testimony still says the plane hit the building.

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.

That's because you're in paranoia-thinking mode.

 

[CosCos]

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'm sorry but I'm going to have to PENTAcorroborate that that answer does not make sense. Are you saying that they planned a north of citgo path on purpose and rigged the lightpoles to.......what?? fool the people who saw the "flyover??" Do you even realize how silly that sounds??

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

But that brings us to the whole point of the question. If it was off course by accident that means the southern flightpath was correct all along which would make the lightpoles being rigged moot!!

You're starting with this flyover assumption which means you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to make everything fit. Sorry, it doesn't fly and your whole theory has crumbled around you. Either you see this and refuse to admit it which makes you intellectually dishonest, or you honestly believe your theory which makes you........

 

[Disbelief]

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?

Lyte, could youplease answer these questions.

Also, what type of C-130 was flying over?

 

[twinstead]

Judge: So, Barrister Lyte, exactly how do you explain the wealth of physical and eye-witness evidence that directly counters 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.

judge: okay, sir. Interesting. Do you have any actual evidence that this did indeed happen, or that any physical evidence at the scene was planted? Any at all?

chirp...chirp...chirp...

judge: sir?

chirp...chirp...chirp...

judge: CASE DISMISSED!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Has Lyte Trip supplied an approximate heading for his "north of the Citgo" flight-path?

 

[Belz...]

Can't focus with Disbelief's avatar.

Who's are those, anyway ?

 

[Belz...]

Judge: So, Barrister Lyte, exactly how do you explain the wealth of physical and eye-witness evidence that directly counters your theory?

judge: okay, sir. Interesting. Do you have any actual evidence that this did indeed happen, or that any physical evidence at the scene was planted? Any at all?

chirp...chirp...chirp...

judge: sir?

chirp...chirp...chirp...

judge: CASE DISMISSED!

Actually It'd go like this:

judge: okay, sir. Interesting. Do you have any actual evidence that this did indeed happen, or that any physical evidence at the scene was planted? Any at all?

Lyte: It's LIKELY!

judge: CASE DISMISSED!

 

[twinstead]

Can't focus with Disbelief's avatar.

Who's are those, anyway ?

Yea, such a cute little kitty.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

There is another problem with that senario.
Lyte contends that the light pole damage was faked and planted. This would have to be done maually by several persons on the scene. the plan would be to plant the damaged poles or cause them to topple when the plane flew overhead. However, Lyte suggests that perhaps the plane was coming in on a different course than originally planned for. He goes as far as to accuse Lloyd England of being one of those who did the faking of the evidence. The problem now is that there was, supposedly, no plane flying over any of those poles. Agents tasked with the damage fakery for some inexplicable reason all went ahead with their part even though the plane did not pass over them.

Even if one argues for an automatic toppling of the poles (Lloyd is then off the hook) one must assume that the planner would account for a much less than ideal flight path and so make sure that the plane must pass directly over, within a small margin of error, before this part of the plan is implemented. To not have a contingency for this part of the plan is ridiculous given the stakes involved.

No one stated that the poles came down too early or too late. No one saw any inconsistency in the poles coming down having occured due to the plane's passage so the timing was well within a small margin or error. No one saw anyone running around placing downed poles about the place.

For that matter no one saw anyone running around placing any debris of any kind all about the entire scene from poles to Pentagon. No one noticed anyone going around picking up the truckloads of wall rubble that would indicate an explosive was detonated within the Pentagon.

 

[uk_dave]

oh come on, give lyte a break.

He's found us out. We might as well admit it.

Yes we carefully staged the attack on the pentagon, and would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids and...etc etc.

It was all so carefully thought out.

We knew the trees would obscure the view of the pentagon.

We knew no one would be taking any pictures in the area at the time.

We knew that EVERYONE, even those people listening to their 'walkman', or with the latest 'slipknot' cd playing at full blast on their car 'radiogram', would be overawed by seeing the plane fly overhead that they would naturally assume it had hit the pentagon just as the preplanted explosives exploded explosively.

We knew that no one would be videoing or taking photographs that morning and might accidentally capture the flyover.

We knew that, despite the error in the preplanned flight path, we could still synchronise the explosion and the flightpath without knocking the 'hijacked' plane out of the sky.

We knew no one would notice the planting of all the fake evidence, because people just don't notice **** like that, not when there's a fireball to distract them. And we knew that they would stay distracted for the 20 mins or so it would take to spread the fake debris.

We knew that even though our plane flew the wrong path, all those who saw it wouldn't come forward until some intrepid investigators started snooping around, but this wouldn't happen for about five years and by that time no one would give a **** anyways.

We knew all this.

And it worked.

Damn, we're good.

 

[Qubit]

However, Lyte suggests that perhaps the plane was coming in on a different course than originally planned for. He goes as far as to accuse Lloyd England of being one of those who did the faking of the evidence.

Herein lies the problem. There is apparent hypocrisy with Lyte. He will say how we accuse his witnesses of lying (which, to my knowledge, no one has) but turn around and accuse those who contradict his claims liars, plants, or in Mr. England's case, mentally instable. This is done without any proof or evidence. I actually find it offensive. You are basically accusing and innocent man who is just telling his story, of being mentally ill. I know I would feel outraged if I read all over the Internet that I was labeled a plant, a liar, or mentally ill without any evidence.

It seems to be the conspiracy theorist's way of thinking. Basically, the Government is able to do anything, even break the laws of physics.

No proof of demolitions? Must be the super secret space beam weapon that caused it.
No proof of fly-over? Must be the advanced cloaking device and master illusions put forth by the government.
Evidence of planted and pre-bent/damaged light poles? Super-duper cover operatives and plants since they (the government) knew all along who would be there AND their exact locations during the event.

It's my opinion that Lyte doesn't believe any of this and just wants to steel some thunder from LC. He saw the notoriety garnered from LC and hopes he could gain fame and perhaps make a few dollars on the way.

 

[Architect]

It seems to be the conspiracy theorist's way of thinking. Basically, the Government is able to do anything, even break the laws of physics.

Ye Cannae Break the Laws O' Physics!






Sorry, I just couldn't resist. But I do in a REAL Scottish accent.

 

[Whiplash]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to PENTAcorroborate that that answer does not make sense. Are you saying that they planned a north of citgo path on purpose and rigged the lightpoles to.......what?? fool the people who saw the "flyover??" Do you even realize how silly that sounds??

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

But that brings us to the whole point of the question. If it was off course by accident that means the southern flightpath was correct all along which would make the lightpoles being rigged moot!!

You're starting with this flyover assumption which means you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to make everything fit. Sorry, it doesn't fly and your whole theory has crumbled around you. Either you see this and refuse to admit it which makes you intellectually dishonest, or you honestly believe your theory which makes you........

An excellent post, which uses logic to show how insane the ideas are to begin with. Sadly, such logic will be completely lost on Lyte. And he will just completely ignore it.

I don't understand these truthers. They honestly think that just ignoring these responses makes them less valid somehow. It's mind boggling. They sit in these forums and make idiotic points, and get blown away over and over. But they sit in stark denial, as if they are actually winning, let alone even surviving. Quite perplexing.

 

[Woody-]

I still dont understand why the "conspirators" would even bother with knocking over a few light poles anyway. I would bet that 99% of the population doesnt even know that some light poles were knocked down, only truthers seem to think that the downed light poles are part of the essential evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Heck it wasnt until a couple years after 9/11 that I even knew that some light poles were knocked over near the Pentagon. It was an interesting bit of trivia once I heard about it but it had no bearing one way or another on my thoughts of the events of the day.

It just goes against the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid) to even think someone would include knocking over light poles as part of some plan since the inclusion of knocked over light poles would only marginally, if at all, help their deception while adding complexity to the plan.

I just cant see someone being suddenly not convinced that a plane hit the Pentagon if the light poles were not knocked over, the other evidence is just overwhelming.

 

[uk_dave]

Welllll not really. I mean, IF the flight was supposed to have taken the path of the physical evidence, but not actually hit the pentagon, then obviously 'truthers' everywhere would be saying "If it was low enough to hit the pentagon then it should have hit some lightpoles along the way".

So in those terms it is necessary to have the poles knocked down.

The question then is why did the plane, as witnessed by lytes superhuman eyewitnesses, not take the path of the physical damage?

'Truthers' would have us believe that someone cocked up (You know, like how there's NO WAY the US air defences could have failed on 9/11 unless they were ordered to 'stand own' because cock-ups don't happen, but the plane taking the wrong route to the pentagon, that's a 'cock-up') or the technology failed.

But the plan was too advanced to be changed (of course no one co-ordinating the distribution of 'fake' debris would be bothered that the plane had flown a different route, they had a job to do!) and so they just proceeded to fake the originally planned for flightpath and hope no one would come back in five years time and question four of the witnesses to the events of that day.

 

[jaydeehess]

But the plan was too advanced to be changed (of course no one co-ordinating the distribution of 'fake' debris would be bothered that the plane had flown a different route, they had a job to do!) and so they just proceeded to fake the originally planned for flightpath and hope no one would come back in five years time and question four of the witnesses to the events of that day.

Exactly,, in the event that the plane did not follow the intended route then all one need do is inform the several 'agents' not to distribute the damaged poles if that occurs. All witnesses , including Lyte's Citgo stars, saw the plane hit (well Robert says his view of the impact was obstructed) so there would be no problem with no downed poles along the supposed northern path. In fact jst put the plane 25 feet higher and at a very slightly steeper desent and you don't need downed poles anywhere and it still impacts the ground floor.


Yet there is that one very relevent point that comes up now and then.

Lyte's senario has a vast, complex, complicated dance of illusion, fakery and deception occuring. Flight 77 and all it souls on board were never seen again. So on one hand you have comandeered a large fast heavy aircraft and you have no concern whatsoever for the people on board and will kill them all,,,,, BUT ,,,,, on the other hand you have planted explosives in the Pentagon, gathered a fairly large team to fake flight path damages, aircarft debris in and around the Pentagon, fake human remains and to kill the people and dispose of the plane elsewhere.

This enormous complex plot could have been made very simple if you just had the plane fly into the building at top speed. Even if it misses the fact that it was moving that fast would ensure that all on board die. Aim for the ground floor and you have 77 feet margin of error above ground. Miss and hit the ground short and everyond still dies.

"Big Lie" doesn't cut it and is completely unneccessary.

 

[uk_dave]

Except that in 'truther' land the perps didn't know how much damage an actual plane crash would cause to the pentagon (only 'truthers' know how much damage should have been caused) so the perps decided on a more controlled method of causing the necessary outrage.

Of course, it would have been simpler to have chosen a different target.

And, of course, the faking of the damage was so open to being revealed that the risks outweigh any possible benefit in using the pentagon as a target (you know, leading immediately to questions about why the US military headquarters wasn't better protected etc etc)

They could have just hit the damn citgo station and caused just as much outrage.

 

[Go_]

So what have we got so far?

Well, it seems that even though our diabolical 9/11 conspirators have already successfully crashed two planes into two buildings in New York, at the Pentagon they inexplicably decide to fake a plane crash into a building instead of actually crashing yet a third plane into a third building.

Yes, you read that right -- even though it would be much easier, much more realistic, much less risky to plot exposure, etc., etc., to simply crash a plane into the Pentagon to give the appearance of a . . . uh, plane crashing into a building, our zany crew of conspirators decides to blow the Pentagon with explosives and to fake the crash instead.

To further complicate matters they also go to the entirely unnecessary trouble of faking a second flight path by surreptitiously taking down five light poles along a busy stretch of highway near the Pentagon to give the appearance that a second jet flew in the same general area just in case someone near the Pentagon happens to notice the conspirator's jet flying over the Pentagon when the fireball explodes.

Why do I say this was unnecessary? Because amazingly enough NO ONE on the other side of the Pentagon did notice a large, noisy passenger jet flying over the building simultaneous with the fireball/explosion. This, despite a busy highway and massive parking lot being located on the other side of the Pentagon from where the fireball exploded and despite a number of construction workers at work there.

Our conspirator/geniuses then somehow manage to sneak into the busy, secured Pentagon disaster site area to plant a fully functional flight data recorder at the site. They do this knowing full well that the flight data contained therein will show that the conspirator's plane flew, um . . . north of the Citgo and then up and over the Pentagon. They do this knowing full well that it will show that the plane could not have been the plane that struck the light poles, thus proving beyond reasonable doubt that the official story they've constructed is a hoax.

In other words, even though our madcap geniuses are apparently bright enough to end the FDR's data run before it shows the plane actually sailing up and over the freakin' Pentagon, it apparently never dawns on them that the data nevertheless will show that the plane was nowhere near the light poles (which, remember, they themselves had unnecessarily taken down) AND that it would overfly the Pentagon by no less than 100 feet were it to continue on any physically reasonable course.

Oh, yeah -- and they also plant a cockpit voice recorder at the site. However, this they intentionally damage so badly that no useful information can be obtained from it. Yes, that's not a mistype. The same conspirator group who manually ruins the data on the CVR stupidly leaves the smoking gun data from the FDR intact.

Hmm . . . you know, the more I think about this -- and since the Three Stooges are dead, right? -- the more I believe that just maybe the bungling Bush administration was behind this.

 

[uk_dave]

Maybe it's a conspiracy to drive the CIT mad.

It may even be working.