chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
So tempting. So, SO tempting...Oh, my lord. The saddest, loneliest little link I ever did see is on that page, Bobert.
The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks.
- Thread starter Lyte Trip
- Start date
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
You'll go to hell, Chipmunk.
Roasted Chipmunk...hmmm, it ain't pork but I still don't think it's kosher.
Lyte? Lyte? You there? Drop us a line if it's just that you're too busy to check into the forums or reply, just so we know you're around and considering our critiques?
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
For the fence-sitters who are catching up: Lyte is off somewhere trying to figure out why he can't find one single person on planet earth who saw AA77 fly over the Pentagon on 9/11/01. He also wonders why he can't find any data from airports around the D.C. area indcating where AA77 flew to.
Quite frankly, he couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a torch.
(Mods - I'm kidding....just kidding
)...actually, I meant it.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Y'know, over here in the colonies, what you're referring to we call a flashlight, whereas this is a torch.
Somehow, I think the latter provides a more entertaining visual.
Incorrect.
Many people saw it.
It was simply reported as a "second" plane and shrugged off.
This is why some reports of a second plane have it "shadowing" or "chasing" the AA Jet and then veering off just after the explosion.
You don't think the c-130 really did that do you?
I must say it has been quite interesting watching how an actual critical thinker/true intellectual characterizes the jref mentality in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78111
Although not his area of study; I'd be interested to hear Greening's opinion on the testimony in The PentaCon as it has been quite evident from the feedback that we have received that unbiased intellectuals such as him find it to be undeniably hard evidence against the official story.
Although not his area of study; I'd be interested to hear Greening's opinion on the testimony in The PentaCon as it has been quite evident from the feedback that we have received that unbiased intellectuals such as him find it to be undeniably hard evidence against the official story.
A W Smith
Philosopher
care to cite that feedback?
Quite simply;
The testimony we present is strong enough, corroborated enough, thorough enough and simple enough for them to believe that these witnesses were at least REMOTELY accurate in their placement of the plane.
That's all it takes to convince an unbiased intellectual that plane didn't hit the building.
To deny this testimony is to admit your bias.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Remind me again, what specifically you have done with this "evidence". Who exactly have you sent it to?
Fixed that for ya!
We are in continuous contact with various authorities and media.
I have already declined to be specific with people here in regards to the details primarily because it is irrelevant to the data itself and certainly off topic to the thread.
A W Smith
Philosopher
I must say it has been quite interesting watching how an actual critical thinker/true intellectual characterizes the jref mentality in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78111
Although not his area of study; I'd be interested to hear Greening's opinion on the testimony in The PentaCon as it has been quite evident from the feedback that we have received that unbiased intellectuals such as him find it to be undeniably hard evidence against the official story.
Quite simply. you have no supporting intellectual feedback that you can cite. Just conflicting testimony from witnesses who cant even recall where they were standing as they watched a plane fly into the pentagon during two seconds of their lives over five and a half years ago.
Boy you sure have shown what an unbiased intellectual you are!
And you guys sit here scratching your heads like chimps when a real critical thinker like Greening completely nails your typical approach to 9/11 data.
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,662
And yet you picked 4 witnesses to focus on in your little video that simply do not corroborate your claim. IMHO, the plane flying over the pentagon is a much bigger story than which side of the Citgo station it flew. You should have started with the "Many people saw it" witnesses first.
Nobody buys your theory Lyte...not even your own ilk. It's a dead issue.
A W Smith
Philosopher
So your using the judy wood tactic.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
I disagree. I believe it is very relevant as it speaks to both your honesty in portraying the information and to your honesty in your pursuit of "the truth".
The fact that you refuse to release the details strongly suggests you are lying about sending it to anyone who may critically look at your research.
Oh please.
We don't care who buys or doesn't buy our flyover "theory".
We simply don't believe the plane was a hologram or destroyed with a spacebeam or disintegrated with magic dust so the only other alternative is the flyover.
Regardless of your obsession with the LCF it is not representative of the truth movement. There are probably 20 people tops that post regularly in the Pentagon forum and the attacks are spearheaded by RP and your "ilk" that shows up to agitate.
The overall response from the movement that we've had has been tremendous.
We couldn't be more pleased.
As time goes on we are certain that this data will gain momentum.
Russell's remote guided 757 impact conspiracy theory and the official story are now the dead issues.