Physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit the Pentagon

[Lyte Trip]

I've been wanting to make this thread but am doing so now because of a direct request from Mercutio. I appreciate his rational, civil, logical, and fair approach to debate. Others here would do well to follow his lead.


In response to The PentaCon....a common thing for skeptics to say is:

"But physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony."

Well the anomalous physical evidence is what started all the questions to begin with. That's what inspired us to go to Arlington and find out what people saw in the first place.

So as in most investigations....this one was inspired by suspicions that arose from examining physical evidence.

The eyewitness testimony simply confirmed our suspicions beyond our wildest imaginations.

Realize that if the citgo witnesses are even somewhat correct in their placement of the plane that this PROVES the physical damage was staged which means the physical evidence IS the crime. Therefore the approach of this investigation has to adjust accordingly. We must look for anomalies.

Here is a nice breakdown in regards to the anomalous physical evidence:


Where is the tail section damage to the third floor? Why is column 14AA still intact?





Why are columns 15-20 blown *up and out*, or not damaged at all from the right wing?




Why is there no continuity to the "wing damage" when it tilted up it's right wing?. It looks as if the facade simply fell off in part of this section. Clearly no wing passed through it.




Why is the floor undamaged, if a 757 just tilted it's left wing, dropped down on the ground, and skidded under the first floor?




If the left wing/engine allegedly tilted and went through/under the first floor. Why is the foundation, the shoring is resting upon, still intact????




Here is the RB211 for scale reference...





This animation from Purdue University didn't even bother including the engines since clearly there was no physical explanation for their existence:



And this image from the ASCE report shows how the plane was allegedly tilted and even depicts the left engine digging into the foundation!


So how could the foundation possibly remain undamaged???







Now everyone is well aware that there is zero evidence that any large pieces of aircraft were found at all and that the only physical evidence of an aircraft that was released is limited to these few parts:




Other than a few more much smaller scattered remnants this is the extent of it. Nothing else even somewhat substantial was reported.

Although the area that allegedly got hit had just undergone a renovation and had blast proof windows etc.............it wasn't built to be 757 proof.

Here is the thickness and material that made up the Pentagon wall:



There is no reason an entire 100 ton 757 would completely disintegrate while leaving areas within the alleged impact of these walls virtually untouched.

So there you go.

Physical evidence that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

The eyewitness testimony simply corroborates the obvious anomalies in the physical evidence.

The plane did not hit the Pentagon.

[gumboot]

Lyte Trip you have previously demonstrated you lack the ability to correctly interpret photographic evidence.

Don't worry you're not alone in this.

-Gumboot

[Arus808]

lyte, its best that you dont start new already debunked theories when you have alread four threads you've abandoned here because you can't back up your claims.

[DavidJames]

Hey Lyte:

Since you've ignored my question in your other thread, maybe you'll answer it here:

You claim to have sent your "rock solid evidence" to the media and the authorities. How about some links to where the media have published anything resulting from your "rock solid evidence". How about posting some responses you received from the authorities whom you've sent your "rock solid evidence". Surely if you have "rock solid evidence", the authorities would have responded.

What did they say?

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Arus808

lyte, its best that you dont start new already debunked theories when you have alread four threads you've abandoned here because you can't back up your claims.

What new theory?

All the threads I have made back the same theory and none have been abandoned.

The discussion has simply progressed.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Hey Lyte:

Since you've ignored my question in your other thread, maybe you'll answer it here:

You claim to have sent your "rock solid evidence" to the media and the authorities. How about some links to where the media have published anything resulting from your "rock solid evidence". How about posting some responses you received from the authorities whom you've sent your "rock solid evidence". Surely if you have "rock solid evidence", the authorities would have responded.

What did they say?

That is waaaaaay off topic.

And I have already said I am not inclined to share that information with you.

I am here to discuss the evidence not report on my day to day activities.

[Totovader]

I love how you point to the damaged floor and structure and say right on there "look, the floor and structure is not damaged".

I mean- it doesn't get any easier than that. You and Merc have a amazing ability to debunk yourselves- and it appears as if you're honing in on that gift...

Kudos.

[Brainache]

OK Lyte, I'll take the bait.

1) If all that death and destruction wasn't caused by Flt 77, what did cause it?

2) Is there any physical evidence for this alternative?

3) What happened to the real Flt 77 and its passengers and crew?

there are lots of other questions that can be asked about your absurd premise, but these three will do for a start.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

...There is no reason an entire 100 ton 757 would completely disintegrate while leaving areas within the alleged impact of these walls virtually untouched.

So there you go.

Not too many years ago I witnessed a crash of a modest-sized military helicopter. I watched it go almost vertical into the tarmac less than two city blocks from where I was standing. Made quite a sound, not to mention an impressive, black smoke cloud. All that was left on the smudged ground were a few charred bits, the total of which would probably have fit in a carry-on suitcase.

Quote:

The plane did not hit the Pentagon.

In searching for my earlier use of the recollection above, I see that I offered them twice before: once on March 23rd of this year, and prior to that exactly one year earlier.

A year of dealing with people who don't, won't, or can't cease from their flights of fancy. And if the JFK assassination is anything to go by, it'll continue for decades to come. And right in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. It's a remarkable phenomenon.

And a waste that I'm done enabling.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

That is waaaaaay off topic.

And I have already said I am not inclined to share that information with you.

I am here to discuss the evidence not report on my day to day activities.

I can only assume then you are a liar. You have not forwarded your "rock solid evidence" to the media nor have you forwarded it to the authorities. You are a coward, a fraud and a liar. This is a game to you. A game you are playing to satisfy your ego and possibly your wallet.

Your game has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with your ego. Why else would someone who believes the government killed 3000 people not want justice, and only post on Internet forums?

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

What new theory?

All the threads I have made back the same theory and none have been abandoned.

The discussion has simply progressed.

1) no your theories haven't been supported
2) the discussion can't progress until you answer the many questions you've left unasnwered in the other threads

please dont make new threads until you address the questiosn that have been asked of you and ignored.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Totovader

I love how you point to the damaged floor and structure and say right on there "look, the floor and structure is not damaged".

I mean- it doesn't get any easier than that. You and Merc have a amazing ability to debunk yourselves- and it appears as if you're honing in on that gift...

Kudos.

What?

The foundation is completely intact.

Circle this damage from the engine that you see.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

What?

The foundation is completely intact.

Circle this damage from the engine that you see.

You see those blocks- the supports.

Read the ASCE BIPS and you'll see why those supports are there, it goes into detail for every single column damaged by the impact. How can you say those columns remain intact as you're pointing to the building being supported by a NEW support structure is exactly why you're a conspiracist.

[Obviousman]

Could you change the images to URLs instead? I have limited bandwidth and multiple large images really slows me down.

Thanks.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Brainache

OK Lyte, I'll take the bait.

1) If all that death and destruction wasn't caused by Flt 77, what did cause it?

2) Is there any physical evidence for this alternative?

3) What happened to the real Flt 77 and its passengers and crew?

there are lots of other questions that can be asked about your absurd premise, but these three will do for a start.

1. Pre-planted explosives etc.

2. All physical evidence has been permanently sequestered but yes in photos you can see columns blown up and out where the right wing was supposed to have entered. Victims that were in the building have said they smelled cordite, thought there were bombs, and didn't see anything that remotely resembled aircraft debris.

3. That's for you to ask the perpetrators.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Totovader

You see those blocks- the supports.

Read the ASCE BIPS and you'll see why those supports are there, it goes into detail for every single column damaged by the impact. How can you say those columns remain intact as you're pointing to the building being supported by a NEW support structure is exactly why you're a conspiracist.

Column?

We are talking about the FOUNDATION. Read slower.

[CHF]

Lyte,

why in your opinion did so many witnesses (including your own) report a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon?

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Arus808

1) no your theories haven't been supported
2) the discussion can't progress until you answer the many questions you've left unasnwered in the other threads

please dont make new threads until you address the questiosn that have been asked of you and ignored.

What question in what thread?

Bump it.

If it is relevant to the topic I will answer it.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Column?

We are talking about the FOUNDATION. Read slower.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...oundation2.jpg

And what do you think a foundation is?

If you want to restrict your theory to the concrete floor, and the floor alone- please explain- using strict calculations- what damage you would expect, and why it is not there.

I see damaged foundation, weakened supports- and a hole where there used to be a building...

Then there was that plane, the witnesses, the flight path damage, the victims, the DNA, FDR, plane parts- etc... but I guess you will continue to ignore that.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by CHF

Lyte,

why in your opinion did so many witnesses (including your own) report a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon?

Why did they report the plane on the north of the citgo?

Only one of the claims can be correct.

Read the OP in the Lagasse/Brooks thread for a list of reasons why it's more likely that the north side claim is correct.

[NobbyNobbs]

I find it highly amusing that Lyte Trip says...

Quote:

Now everyone is well aware that there is zero evidence that any large pieces of aircraft were found at all

...as an introduction to the 9 photographs of such evidence.

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Why did they report the plane on the north of the citgo?

Only one of the claims can be correct.

Read the OP in the Lagasse/Brooks thread for a list of reasons why it's more likely that the north side claim is correct.

FINALLY...

You admit that the majority of witness contradict your "north of the Citgo" story.

Jeez- took ya long enough.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Totovader

And what do you think a foundation is?

Too funny.

Ummmmmm........not columns?



I can't believe I have to do this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundat...rchitecture%29

[The Doc]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Only one of the claims can be correct.

Well why are you claiming that both are?

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Totovader

FINALLY...

You admit that the majority of witness contradict your "north of the Citgo" story.

Jeez- took ya long enough.

Whaaaaaaaat?

Where did I say anything remotely resembling such a thing?

First you think a foundation is a column and now you are pretending I am saying things I didn't even say.

Are you off your meds dude?

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Too funny.

Ummmmmm........not columns?



I can't believe I have to do this:

So, you're ignoring the columns- in addition to the requirement that you actually support your statements?

Why would you expect the floor to be damaged any more than it was?

(And, by the way- look at your own photographs. You are pointing to the columns when you state "foundation"- which is why I was assuming your definition was not quite so literal. Consider your own statements before you go pretending to "have to do" anything.)

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

I find it highly amusing that Lyte Trip says...

"Now everyone is well aware that there is zero evidence that any large pieces of aircraft were found at all"

...as an introduction to the 9 photographs of such evidence.

You call those "large" pieces??

Haven't seen too many jets in your day?

You must be a homebody.

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Column?

We are talking about the FOUNDATION. Read slower.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...oundation2.jpg

Dear oh dear, Lyte you're no better at construction than you are at eyewitness testimony.

Just a word to the wise, don't mention the lack of damage to a buildings foundations again, certainly not in this context, because it really does not make you look very......bright.

For the record, the foundation of a structure provides a stable base upon which the superstructure is built.

Dmage to a foundation would normally only occur through ground movement such as earthquakes or subsidence.

A plane hitting a building is very unlikely to cause any damage to what is (probably) a mass of concrete buried in the ground.

Also, your killklown impersonation of "where's the damage from the tailplane" further indicates that you are speaking from a position of personal incredulity rather than expertise.

Something to consider with regard to aircraft:

You know that an aircraft derives lift from it's wings, right?
So effectively the wings are supporting the fuselage of the plane.
So, if you wanted to lift an aircraft with, for example, a crane, you could do so by lifting the wings.

I make these points to indicate that the wing structure is not fragile but is sturdy enough to carry the loading of the aircraft.

However, the tail is a relatively flimsy construction, and smashing the tail section into a building at high speed is likely to leave very little recogniseable tail pieces, and the tip of the tail is unlikely to cause a great deal of damage to the wall it hits.

To summarize:

Wings = strong and cause lots of damage as they disintegrate

Tail = weak and cause little damage as it disintegrates

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Whaaaaaaaat?

Where did I say anything remotely resembling such a thing?

First you think a foundation is a column and now you are pretending I am saying things I didn't even say.

Are you off your meds dude?

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Why did they report the plane on the north of the citgo?

Only one of the claims can be correct.

Read the OP in the Lagasse/Brooks thread for a list of reasons why it's more likely that the north side claim is correct.

Did you miss it?

And if you want to continue to boast that your equivocation is worth anything- you should at least try and answer the question.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

1. Pre-planted explosives etc.

Not really an answer. You might as well have said "Magic". So no one in the Pentagon was aware of their offices being planted with explosives. If they were, they decided to stay in their offices anyway and be killed. Yes Lyte, killed in a horrific way by explosions and fire. Unless you also want me to believe that no one died there at all. Or were all the people in those offices expendable pawns in the evil perps' game?

Quote:

2. All physical evidence has been permanently sequestered but yes in photos you can see columns blown up and out where the right wing was supposed to have entered. Victims that were in the building have said they smelled cordite, thought there were bombs, and didn't see anything that remotely resembled aircraft debris.

There was a fair bit of aircraft debris. Hal Bidlack, a man who posts on this forum was there that day. He saw parts of an airplane. He helped carry the dead and wounded. He doesn't share your beliefs. Lyte, is he a liar?

Quote:

3. That's for you to ask the perpetrators.

It's your theory Lyte. I know where they are. They were destroyed by an impact with the Pentagon.

I was asking how your theory accounts for their deaths. I see you don't feel your theory needs to acount for all the facts, just poke imaginary holes in reality and pretend like you are doing some kind of investigation.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Totovader

So, you're ignoring the columns- in addition to the requirement that you actually support your statements?

Why would you expect the floor to be damaged any more than it was?

Because the official story says the plane was tilted and entered entirely under the first two floors:



That image is from the ASCE report.

It's their story.....not ours.

[CHF]

Lyte,

I think the most likely scenario is that your two witnesses are wrong about the flight path and that the rest of the witnesses are right.

As for a plane hitting the Pentagon....ALL are agreed on that point.

So why are you opposing what ALL WITNESSES claim?

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Because the official story says the plane was tilted and entered entirely under the first two floors:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...tagon/138b.jpg

That image is from the ASCE report.

It's their story.....not ours.

This really doesn't answer the question. Do you expect the engines and plane to somehow dig in at over 500mph after hitting the edge of the Pentagon?

I'm wording it that way so you can start to see that your expectation is entirely unreasonable... let's see if it starts to click...

[Totovader]

Getting more to the point- you have claimed that you have evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

So far you have only supplied what you see as reasons to doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon- which are all easily debunked.

So far it's all been a large dose of argumentum ad ignorantium- so I'm waiting patiently for you to actually get some evidence.

You claim it was a missile. Where is the evidence of a missile?

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Dear oh dear, Lyte you're no better at construction than you are at eyewitness testimony.

Just a word to the wise, don't mention the lack of damage to a buildings foundations again, certainly not in this context, because it really does not make you look very......bright.

For the record, the foundation of a structure provides a stable base upon which the superstructure is built.

Dmage to a foundation would normally only occur through ground movement such as earthquakes or subsidence.

A plane hitting a building is very unlikely to cause any damage to what is (probably) a mass of concrete buried in the ground.

To suggest a 6 ton titanium engine that slams into a concrete slab is going to leave it perfectly intact is absurd. That's why you went right to the wings and tail. They have the engine digging in the ground.

Quote:

However, the tail is a relatively flimsy construction, and smashing the tail section into a building at high speed is likely to leave very little recogniseable tail pieces, and the tip of the tail is unlikely to cause a great deal of damage to the wall it hits.

To summarize:

Wings = strong and cause lots of damage as they disintegrate

Tail = weak and cause little damage as it disintegrates

The columns are blown UP AND OUTWARDS.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Totovader

Getting more to the point- you have claimed that you have evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

So far you have only supplied what you see as reasons to doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon- which are all easily debunked.

So far it's all been a large dose of argumentum ad ignorantium- so I'm waiting patiently for you to actually get some evidence.

You claim it was a missile. Where is the evidence of a missile?

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.

[CHF]

Lyte,

why do witnesses (including your own) report a plane hitting the Pentagon?

What plane was it if not flight 77?

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by Brainache

Not really an answer. You might as well have said "Magic". So no one in the Pentagon was aware of their offices being planted with explosives. If they were, they decided to stay in their offices anyway and be killed. Yes Lyte, killed in a horrific way by explosions and fire. Unless you also want me to believe that no one died there at all. Or were all the people in those offices expendable pawns in the evil perps' game?

They were victims.

The renovation had just completed and the section was not fully occupied.

Quote:

There was a fair bit of aircraft debris. Hal Bidlack, a man who posts on this forum was there that day. He saw parts of an airplane. He helped carry the dead and wounded. He doesn't share your beliefs. Lyte, is he a liar?

He does not contradict anything I have claimed. I posted images of every substantial piece of debris that was reported.

Quote:

It's your theory Lyte. I know where they are. They were destroyed by an impact with the Pentagon.

I was asking how your theory accounts for their deaths. I see you don't feel your theory needs to acount for all the facts, just poke imaginary holes in reality and pretend like you are doing some kind of investigation.

We just uncover evidence.

No matter how much you want to deny it; the on site testimony we have obtained is evidence. Rather strong evidence at that.

[Lyte Trip]

Originally Posted by CHF

Lyte,

why do witnesses (including your own) report a plane hitting the Pentagon?

What plane was it if not flight 77?

You see CHF.....that's the whole point.

I know it's kind of hard for a raccoon to understand but the plane they saw could not possibly have created the physical damage so that means it couldn't have hit the building.

The witnesses were simply fooled into believing it did because of the timing.

It was a sleight of hand illusion.

Don't you JREF'ers get into those types of things?

You know......magic tricks.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

To suggest a 6 ton titanium engine that slams into a concrete slab is going to leave it perfectly intact is absurd.

What about an engine that impacts at a very shallow angle?

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

They have the engine digging in the ground.

That image is not physical evidence, no matter the source.