Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon
And you think he cares because? Oh, wait, you are assuming he knows how to manipulate them - when in reality he only knows how to misinterpret them.
I'm guessing Lyte's next post will be some kind of statement about how disappointed he is in us, watch his video(no chance I'll ever add views to something that ridiculous), and he's not going to bother trying to convince us anymore because we won't listen to reason...right?
Hasn't this been debunked like two years ago?
Lyte, I'm disappointed. At least the PentaCon was your own thing, the flyover theory was your personal contribution to the conspiracy idiocy.
Now you're back to posting already debunked junk from other conspiracy sites?
Lyte, I'm disappointed. At least the PentaCon was your own thing, the flyover theory was your personal contribution to the conspiracy idiocy.
Now you're back to posting already debunked junk from other conspiracy sites?
It's damage control.
Lyte has his 'north of citgo therefore flyover' theory but keeps seeing it debunked with "But what about the physical evidence and the witnesses ho saw the plane hit the building?"
He feels he can counter the latter by attempting to prove that the witnesses could not see/were mistaken/lied about the plane hitting.
Now he's trying to counter the former by questioning the physical evidence of the crash scene which he can do simply by saying "It don't look right".
Lack of expertise + Lack of imagination = Conspracy theory
I'm afraid you seem to have very little awareness of how aircraft are constructed. You describe the engine as though it's a solid block of titanium. It's far from being so. A high-bypass turbofan consists of a traditional roughly cylindrical/tubular-shaped turbojet engine, encased in a larger shell which contains the large-diameter fan on the front, and allows the air to flow around the central engine unit:
The inner engine is made of myriad small aluminium, magnesium and titanium parts - discs, blades, chambers and pipes - few massive castings or forgings (the discs are probably the most substantial parts and ooh look, there's one in your picture!). All are made as light as possible, and in themselves are very strong. But as a cohesive unit, an airliner engine is not the monolithic block you make it out to be.
Titanium, as Dave pointed out, is used in limited areas, where its properties are required. It's expensive stuff, and not needed everywhere. The outer casing is even less robust than the main engine - it's made mostly of sheet aluminium and carbon fibre skins, with the air-flow space between it and the central engine. As such there is a great deal of space for the casing to crush and deform into - damage easily inflicted in an impact like this. Given the shallow angle of impact, the concrete foundations would likely suffer little more than scrapes as the wing passes over it, whilst the outer engine would be crushed and torn away, the remainder of the engine continuing into the rest of the building with the other remains of the plane, sustaining more damage as it goes.
Think of your car, crashing into a wall (let's all consider that for a moment). It's not a block of metal; it can compress, deform, crush, to a great extent and in even low-speed accidents.
Does that help?
Lyte:
Your ENTIRE collection of so called evidence is crap and here is why...
YOU ARE NOT AN AIRCRAFT CRASH INVESTIGATOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EDUCATION OR JOB RELATED EXPERIENCE TO INTERPRET OR GENUINELY SPECULATE (beyond what a duck might speculate) WHAT THE SITE, BUILDINGS, GROUND, OR PARTS OF THE AIRCRAFT SHOULD LOOK LIKE POST CRASH.
end of story...next.
TAM
Your ENTIRE collection of so called evidence is crap and here is why...
YOU ARE NOT AN AIRCRAFT CRASH INVESTIGATOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EDUCATION OR JOB RELATED EXPERIENCE TO INTERPRET OR GENUINELY SPECULATE (beyond what a duck might speculate) WHAT THE SITE, BUILDINGS, GROUND, OR PARTS OF THE AIRCRAFT SHOULD LOOK LIKE POST CRASH.
end of story...next.
TAM
Lyte:
Your ENTIRE collection of so called evidence is crap and here is why...
YOU ARE NOT AN AIRCRAFT CRASH INVESTIGATOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EDUCATION OR JOB RELATED EXPERIENCE TO INTERPRET OR GENUINELY SPECULATE (beyond what a duck might speculate) WHAT THE SITE, BUILDINGS, GROUND, OR PARTS OF THE AIRCRAFT SHOULD LOOK LIKE POST CRASH.
end of story...next.
TAM
Apparently the ASCE or Purdue didn't bother using any crash investigators either.
Next.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
DNA
If a care was hurled through the air at 500 mph and dug into the foundation like the ASCE report said that engine did you better believe there would be damage to it.
Prove it came from the Pentagon.
Accepting the word of the suspect is never accepted as proof.
So next time they should hire a couple of college kids (I assume you at least went to college) to do their investigating? Bravo.
...and you wonder why noone is giving you or your theories serious attention.
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,034
I'll repeat...
You keep saying this Lyte, but haven't shown how this illusion is remotely possible. You have your little animation of a plane flying towards the Pentagon and dissappearing into a fireball, but you conviniently stop the animation at this point.
What happens AFTER that animation?
How woould it look from other angles?
Those of us in this, SANE, world, do not consider the FBI, or other law enforcement agencies involved, to be the suspects, so we accept their proof, you do not.
ok, so now what?
Go rally your troops...
TAM
embellishing, lying, or more than likely, (3) lead by their questioners AND/OR (4) mistaken due to their remoteness temporally, to the event in question.
TAM
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017