'
Nobody has talked about the lack of damage to the foundation.
But this thread is purely a response to Mercurtio's request.
Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon
Nobody has talked about the lack of damage to the foundation.
But this thread is purely a response to Mercurtio's request.
That was an analogy that I thought you might be able to relate to. Instead you addressed it rather than the thrust of what I was trying to explain.
Shallow angle of impact + fragile turbofan cowl = relatively little damage to the concrete. Easily nothing that would show up on the photos you have available to you.
Do you concede that the engine was not largely titanium, and that the outer cowl was easily deformable?
We know some people up on 395 would have seen the fly over.
They were just told it was a different plane.
One that was reportedly "shadowing" the AA jet but veered off and over the Pentagon just after the explosion.
But the illusion would have easily fooled those out route 27 and obviously at the citgo.
Nobody else had a good enough view.
Yeah sure whatever. It's still several tons.
It would still cause damage to a concrete foundation.
The citgo witnesses have proven the plane didn't cause the physical damage.
This implicates people all the way to the top in this crime.
Of course they had the ability to compromise the chain of command of the DNA.
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
Did you not reach them, or didn't they want to talk to you?
I think it would be safe to guess that there could have been close to 100 people involved in the collection and analysis of the DNA so you are calling them all mass murderers?
There goes Lyte the fraud trip with the good ole truther nutjob arguement of everyone is in on it
Lyte DOES NOT hold a college degree.
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
Ok. One more question. What would it take for you to believe, that flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon?
Well then certainly he must have SOME qualifications, I mean he is part of the CITIZENS INVESTIGATIONS TEAM Isnt he?
Perhaps training in Genetics, DNA analysis, Criminology, Forensics, Crash analysis, Psychology, medicine, physics, chemistry...certainly something... some training beyond highschool?
TAM
Aaaaaah the gold ole
"but of course they did" arguement.
Did you get your research skills out of a box of Cracker Jacks?
Yes, but how much damage? Enough to show up on a photo taken at a shallow angle and from a distance?
I'm labouring the point on engine construction because given the very shallow angle of impact, it seems quite possible that only the light outer cowling of the engine impacted the concrete, along with the main fan blades (easily sheared off).
Have you ever held an aluminium skin or even a whole cowling from an aircraft? It's light, thin, you could distort it with your bare hands. Even the whole cowling assembly would be a fraction of the overall engine mass. The all-up weight of the whole engine has no bearing at all on the damage it might inflict to the concrete.
Given the shallow angle, much less damage would be inflicted. And because of that angle, it's unlikely that the full mass of the engine impacted the concrete.
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,034
But, Lyte, nobody saw ANY plane fly over the Pentagon immdiately following the explosion. Nobody. Not one.
Go ahead and produce ONE person that reported seeing ANY plane fly over the Pentagon immdietely after the impact.
There is a reason why you didn't finish your little animation. It's because it's impossible for a flyover to have occured without anyone seeing it. Before the collision, eyes were on the plane. At the moment of impact, ALL eyes would be drawn to the explosion. And nobody - NOBODY - saw a flyover.
Wrong again. The logistics of what you are proposing are simply ridiculous.
Finish your little animation. Show us what happens to the plane.