*split* Lyte's proof that the Lloyd England's experience is false

List your qualifications Lyte, from high school to now, that qualify you as someone who can investigate an accident and deem it impossible.

Also, again, until you answer, are you going to do a course in accident investigation?
 
Lyte Trip said:
You people look so silly.

Can't you ever discuss things like mature indivduals?

Jaydee,

I am not referring to the turn. Although, it's just silly to propose Hani controlled that craft. i am refering to the "pilot" flying on the official damage path, it is like threading the needle.

Jaydee, are you a pilot? Have bothered to try and speak with the pilots at PFT? Are you really that ignorant, that you base everything on your encounters with or impressions of Rob Balsamo?
Click to expand...


One simply cannot disagree with anyone for more than a few posts on P4T without being summarily banned. Surely you know this Lyte.

I have spoken with the P4T poster known as 'bill' (a self described pilot) on another forum and shown him to be an a$$. He divided height in feet by time in minutes and came up with a desent rate of feet per second. ie. he was off by a factor of 60. He also could not calculate the g forces on the plane. I had to do it for him. I asked, several times that he point out where I was wrong and he quite obviously could not even follow the simple grade 12 math. He also believed that a Boeing's computer would not allow the plane to exceed g limits and speed limits and cited Airbus FBW technology to back himself up when in fact boeing has made it clear that a 757 is not a true FBW aircraft and that even on Boeing FBW aircraft the computer will not be given override control. I gave examples of Boeing aircraft , including a 757 that are known to have exceeded the factory recommendations of g forces and Vmo due to inputs to the controls from the pilots.

So much for at least one of the vaunted 'pilots' at P4T. Would it have been required of me to speak with others there too Lyte? Too bad that one cannot discourse with a poster there without drawing the ire of jdx and thus getting banned. however, I asked jdx what the DME/VOR reading was at the last reading in the FDR. He refused to answer. Now it seems to me that the DME reading puts the plane 1.25 miles or so from the Pentagon at the last FDR data frame which does not match the ground image in the NTSB animation. The DME reading would put it several hundred feet before reaching the lamp posts. But P4T and jdx claim that the animation is correct in showing that the plane was over the lamp poles at the time of the last data frame. How do the 'professionals' at P4T deal with the DME/VOR reading? They ignore it!!!!!!!!

Rob Balsamo IS "Pilots for Truth" and yes you are correct that he is a bombastic, conceited, authoritarian who would make a good role model for any third world dictator.

Flying the 'official' flight path is only 'threading a needle' if one assumes that hitting the exact spot of the Pentagon that was hit, was the exact spot that it was required to hit and at the angle that was planned for. Hanjour's mission would have been a success if he had completly missed the front of the Pentagon and crashed into the inner wall of the far side, it would have been a complete success if he had hit the Pentagon at the corner of the building to his starboard along the same angle that he hit the Pentagon, it would have been a complete success if he had hit the Pentagon from any other direction or angle and the Pentagon is a very large building. In fact Hanjour's mission would have been at least partially successful had he crashed into I-395!
 
Lyte Trip said:
You people look so silly.
Click to expand...

Try rubbing your eyes.

Jaydee, are you a pilot? Have bothered to try and speak with the pilots at PFT? Are you really that ignorant, that you base everything on your encounters with or impressions of Rob Balsamo?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone discuss this issue with make-believe pilots when there are plenty of REAL pilots available?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
You going to do a course in accident investigation?
Click to expand...

I would like to know this too, Lyte. If you really believe what you say you believe, wouldn't it be irresponsible to not try and learn as much as you can about accident investigation? If you really believe it's the "truth", then wouldn't knowledge help your case better than ignorance?
 
Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Put another way, how can a person who believes that the impact occured at the same time as or shortly after the fireball also believe that the fireball occured BEFORE the impact?

Lyte posts;
I don't know what you are getting at
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

Oh come on,,,, Ok

Your interpretation of Robert's statement is that he saw the plane rise over the signage while heading towards the Pentagon, THEN it was obscured by the fireball. Robert says it was "still" obscured when it hit the Pentagon, thus indicating (by your interpretation of what he says) that the fireball occured in advance of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

But Robert finds nothing to say about this being an unsual timing, having the fireball occur first, then impact. Robert is quite convinced that the plane did indeed hit the building as well and most people would have to assume that the fireball occurs asa result of the impact which would mean that it simply would never be described, by anyone who actually believes that the plane crashed, as "still" obscuring the view when impact occured.
 
Lyte Trip said:
yeah and just saying witnesses were mistaken because it 5 yrs later is also a good way to win a debate....at least in your mind.
Click to expand...

In your mind is the only place where these things exist.

Or there is even a debate.
 
Lyte, in case you missed it the several times I have said it, my interpretation of what Robert is stating goes as such.

The plane flew over the signage heading for the Pentagon. It then went out of his sight due the plane desending past the high ground of the highway. the highway "still" obscured his view of the impact and all he saw of it was the fireball.

Why did you not ask any of your witnesses to say where they thought the plane had hit the Pentagon Lyte? Had any of them said it hit the upper floors it would lend some small measure of credence to your fly over senario. certainly having any of them saying that it was desending and thus it would have hit lower down on the building would fly in the face of (pun fully intended) your senario.
 
And to continue on where jaydee left off, it could be argued that Hanjor's inexperience led him to having to make the 270 degree turn as he came in to Washington too high. He may have lost his situational awareness and came upon the Pentagon sooner than he thought he would. Who knows? We'll never really know what was going on in that cockpit.

And 'threading the needle' isn't really and apt description of it, as he hit darn near everything in his path on the way to the Pentagon once he was low enough.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
So your vaunted 95% of pilots and A & P mechanics at the Pilots for Truth discussion board amounts to...two people. Two whose qualifications to make a determination (by photo analysis alone, I take it?) as to whether or not a 757 crashed at the Pentagon you're certain of.
Click to expand...

Posted by Lyte Trip:

No 95% of 20-30 aviation professionals.

I am sorry they are not over-confident, anonymous, "critical thinkers", on a magician's forum board.

We should have consulted you guys on the pentagon attack. Clearly you know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

95% of 30 = 1.5

Looks like a Stundie nominee to me.
 
jhunter1163 said:
D'oh! *returns to hole*

I may have just Stundied myself... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

On the other hand, I have shown one member of that 95% to be an idiot when it comes to the plane into the Pentagon and thus it leaves 91.7% of the 30 (or 27.5 of them) to carry the load. then jdx himself has been shown to incorrect in his first estimation of the g loads on the aircraft and he has also ignored the DME/VOR data it seems so we can eliminate jdx as well. That leaves 26.5 out of the 30 meaning we are down to 88.3%.

Anyone have anything they can add concerning another 'pilot' on P4T other than the posters there known as bill and jdx?

Lyte wishes to shill for P4T? Fine, if HE wants to drop the references to the expertise at P4T that would also be fine.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
List your qualifications Lyte, from high school to now, that qualify you as someone who can investigate an accident and deem it impossible.

Also, again, until you answer, are you going to do a course in accident investigation?
Click to expand...
Trying to get Lyte to answer you is like trying to prove that Paris Hilton is a virgin :p
 
Painting a target after the arrow has been shot... I like that as a good description of the 'threading the needle' nonsense.

One of the things that the CT' slike to use is that the wing that was hit was less occupied than other areas and thus caused fewer victims on the ground and then saying that this must have been the exact place that had been planned to be hit by the evil gov't conspirators and thus describing hitting that spot as having to thread the needle. Had the plane been a few hundred feet to the left it could have seen the starboard wing hit the building and the rest of the plane crash into the parking lot at which time the CT's would claim that this was done to minimize damage and on the ground victims and that making only the starboard wing hit the building required 'threading the needle'. OR, the plane crashes 50 feet in front of the building and only the densest pieces enter the building and the blast protection of the wall cause the damage and fires to be much less resulting in them stating that this would require the pilot to 'thread the needle'.

Instead we get jdx et al suggesting that Hanjour would have been better served to take this large passenger aircraft into a steep high speed dive. Yes, hitting the Pentagon on a more occupied wing in a steep, high speed dive would have immediatly caused much greater damage and death. However it would be one of the most difficult ways to hit the building with a large passenger jet.

The suggestion then is that because Hanjour did not attempt one of the most difficult paths into the Pentagon and specifically target, and be successful in targetting, a more populous area this somehow indicates that the plane was a deliberate 'false flag' operation by a shadowy, evil gov't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom