CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
So...witnesses saw a passenger jet fly overhead and crash into the Pentagon. But it wasn't really the passenger jet that they saw. It was something else.
Is that what you're saying?
Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon
So...witnesses saw a passenger jet fly overhead and crash into the Pentagon. But it wasn't really the passenger jet that they saw. It was something else.
Is that what you're saying?
Firstly, the engine is not ALL titanium.
The engine would have been torn to pieces as it hit the external wall. It was moving forwards above ground level.
If the engine had gouged out the ground in front of the building then this would be apparent.
THAT is why your '6 ton titanium' engine did not damage the foundation.
You also seem to be under the impression that the ground floor slab is the foundation. It is not, so do try to get your terminology correct.
You then go on to use your extensive imaginary expertise to comment upon the condition of the columns. But you, like so many of your brethren have not the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Buildings contain a number of loadbearing elements in their fight against gravity. These elements are subject to loads which, when damage is caused to a structure, will make those elements move.
That the movement you see does not correspond with your preconception of how the building should have looked after the crash is your problem, not mine.
But, consider this:
Just as with the shanksville crash, 'truthers' would have us believe that the evidence for the official account of events on 9/11 was faked.
And yet, we are also to believe that it was faked so badly that amatuer slueths armed only with their own over exhalted common sense can see through this fakery.
That this fakery is not apparent to architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, fire engineers, air crash investigators et al, but is only apparent to yourself and the likes of killklown, should give you pause for thought.
It obviously doesn't, but it should.
Last edited:
I dont think that he is asking about your "day to day activities".
You continue to mock and piss on the dead.
Bingo!
SRW
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,903
Lyle, are you saying that the 9 photos you show are all the pieces of the Jet found? If not then why don't you show all the pieces found?
Unless you are making the claim that the parts shown are all that is left, why show them at all? Its a little bit like you fell into a wood chipper, and I were to hold up your ear and say This is all that is left of Lyle. Well; if you look behind the chipper there is Lyle everywhere.
So what is your point in showing the 9 pictures. If you say that is all that was found and I find one more piece of the plane will you go away and come back with a bettor theory?
babazaroni
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 787
The tail slants backwards, which means the lower section strikes first. That won't leave much left, if anything, to damage the 3rd floor.
Why would the wing go under the first floor?
It went into the first floor.
How do you explain this?
What in the world caused this damage then? This generator was knocked TOWARDS the building. An explosion that originated at the building could not have possibly done this, unless the government somehow learned how to develop a black-hole bomb. And if the airplane nicked this generator and then pulled up over the Pentagon, it would have experienced such extreme g-forces that it would have deteriorated shortly after its maneuver. That's disregarding the fact that the plane simply cannot make that kind of maneuver anyway.
Last edited:
As for Lyte Step's complaint about the "explosive"-looking effect on the columns:
If you bother to read the Pentagon Building Performance Report, you will learn that the damage inside the Pentagon was essentially blast rather than impact. This isn't entirely unexpected given the enormous kinetic and fuel energy of the plane. Few large pieces survived the impact with the outer wall, but a great deal of energy remained to dissipate. I explained this and the evidence therefor in my destruction of Russell Pickering's hypothesis.
For the blunted and reading-impaired, this means the damage is wholly consistent with aircraft impact, and not consistent with explosives.
If you bother to read the Pentagon Building Performance Report, you will learn that the damage inside the Pentagon was essentially blast rather than impact. This isn't entirely unexpected given the enormous kinetic and fuel energy of the plane. Few large pieces survived the impact with the outer wall, but a great deal of energy remained to dissipate. I explained this and the evidence therefor in my destruction of Russell Pickering's hypothesis.
For the blunted and reading-impaired, this means the damage is wholly consistent with aircraft impact, and not consistent with explosives.
Lytes response will be:
All of that is PLANTED and PREFABRICATED.
Can you imagine the meeting:
"Ok so we need your company to prefabricate a bunch of damaged stuff"
"Ok we need you to sneak out in front of the pentagon in broad daylight and plant all these plane parts of burned up stuff.....dont worry we will give you the special NWO power that will make you super human so that no one sees you!!!"
All of that is PLANTED and PREFABRICATED.
Can you imagine the meeting:
"Ok so we need your company to prefabricate a bunch of damaged stuff"
"Ok we need you to sneak out in front of the pentagon in broad daylight and plant all these plane parts of burned up stuff.....dont worry we will give you the special NWO power that will make you super human so that no one sees you!!!"
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 5,617
1) Exactly how large do you expect the pieces of such a crash to be?
2) What reason do you have for answering question 1 as you did (will)?
Keep in mind that of any photos of plane crashes you chose topost for comparison, most other crashes occur either right after take-off or just before landing, at lower speeds. Those that don't are generally cases where the pilot doesn't want to crash, and is attempting to avoid it.
For comparison, then, you will need to find photo evidence of crashes at a relatively high speed. And you will need to show that it is typical for such crashes to leave an abundance of larger pieces than those that were found at the Pentagon.
Finally, you will need to show how your theory is more likely and fits more evidence than any other theory out there.
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,158
Lyte seems to think that someone could:
1. Fly a 757 over the Pentagon.
2. Blow a wall of the Pentagon up with explosives.
3. Destroy light poles with something other than a plane, away for the flight path of the plane.
4. Plant pieces of 757 in and around the Pentagon.
5. Destroy the generator outside the Pentagon.
All in broad daylight without ONE PERSON noticing.
"Sir. Operation Pentagon Destroy is commencing"
"Good, are the men ready to destroy light poles no where near the flight path we are creating for Flight 77?"
"Yes Sir."
"And are they ready to place pieces of an aircraft in and around the Pentagon?"
"Yes Sir. But Sir.... what if someone sees us?"
"My god...."
1. Fly a 757 over the Pentagon.
2. Blow a wall of the Pentagon up with explosives.
3. Destroy light poles with something other than a plane, away for the flight path of the plane.
4. Plant pieces of 757 in and around the Pentagon.
5. Destroy the generator outside the Pentagon.
All in broad daylight without ONE PERSON noticing.
"Sir. Operation Pentagon Destroy is commencing"
"Good, are the men ready to destroy light poles no where near the flight path we are creating for Flight 77?"
"Yes Sir."
"And are they ready to place pieces of an aircraft in and around the Pentagon?"
"Yes Sir. But Sir.... what if someone sees us?"
"My god...."
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Lyte Trip, I can't for the life of me understand why you're behaving in such a childish and heartless way. You obviously still haven't taken Hal Bidlack's message to heart. Here it is once again: http://tinyurl.com/f4ykj
From the commonly-available lists of Pentagon attack witnesses, I have noted that at least:
99 people saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100 feet of the impact.
25 specifically said it was an American Airlines jet.
34 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
6 said it was a Boeing 757.
6 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 saw the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
37 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 2 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
Lyte Trip, what did Air Force Chief Master Sergeant John Monaccio say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.
Lyte Trip, what did Mickey Bell, Sean Boger, Omar Campo, Michael DiPaula, Frank Probst, and Jack Singleton say when you spoke to them? All of them saw flight 77 approach and came within feet of being struck as it roared across the Pentagon lawn.
What did Frank Probst say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.
These people lived through a nightmarish reality, yet you're the one who's hiding under the covers. While you're under there, maybe you can spend some time thinking about all the people who have terrifying nightmares because they lived these events.
Real people, in the real world, Lyte. If they can carry on as adults, so can you. Please stop this madness and regain your dignity.
From the commonly-available lists of Pentagon attack witnesses, I have noted that at least:
99 people saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100 feet of the impact.
25 specifically said it was an American Airlines jet.
34 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
6 said it was a Boeing 757.
6 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 saw the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
37 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 2 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
So what did Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.
Lyte Trip, what did Air Force Chief Master Sergeant John Monaccio say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.
Lyte Trip, what did Mickey Bell, Sean Boger, Omar Campo, Michael DiPaula, Frank Probst, and Jack Singleton say when you spoke to them? All of them saw flight 77 approach and came within feet of being struck as it roared across the Pentagon lawn.
What did Frank Probst say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.
What did firefighter Alan Wallace say when you informed him that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you're not man enough to speak to him.
These people lived through a nightmarish reality, yet you're the one who's hiding under the covers. While you're under there, maybe you can spend some time thinking about all the people who have terrifying nightmares because they lived these events.
Real people, in the real world, Lyte. If they can carry on as adults, so can you. Please stop this madness and regain your dignity.
Last edited:
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
You are out of your mind tonight.
I do NOT claim it was a missile!
Apparently you haven't even watched The PentaCon.
Please at least go watch it before you try telling me what I believe.
You're right- I get you confused with all the other no-planers.
Still, instead of dodging the question- you still could have answered it.
Please do that now.
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
You keep saying this in an attempt to dodge the question.
Whether we're talking about "foundation" or foundation- it really doesn't matter, and it's not a way for you to escape the culpability of supporting your statements.