How would me listing who we have contacted speak to my "honesty" at all?
The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks.
- Thread starter Lyte Trip
- Start date
How would me listing who we have contacted speak to my "honesty" at all?
A W Smith
Philosopher
Ok tell the truth. You, Merc, ChristopherA, Ace, met at the same mental facility, didnt you?
This is just a big gag orchestrated from the day room the morning after they got computers.
This is just a big gag orchestrated from the day room the morning after they got computers.
You can not compare the research presented in The PentaCon to any 9/11 "theory".
We back up our claims with hard evidence.
1st hand testimony is not conjecture or speculation.
Especially when it is as strong and highly corroborated as the testimony that we have presented.
Wartrac
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
- Messages
- 165
Unlikely, well outside of the bowel movement anyways. The more public the bowel movement becomes the more scrutiny movies like yours will endure and fall apart.......more than it already has.
Still think that your witnesses are wrong or mistaken regarding the impact?
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
it is a theory. since you have nothing to back up your claims but speculation and the inference of witnesses who can't remember what they saw 5 years ago, its a theory.
bad memory from eyewitnesses to an event 5 years ago, that lasted all of 2 seconds of their life, isn't hard evidence.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE = Hard evidence/.
It is and will always be. Please look up both terms in the dictionary.
this is where you are 100% . Testimony by eyewitness must be corroborated by PHYSICAL evidence. Not the testimony of other eyewitnesses.
AS stated to you here on this forum in other threads about your fictional film, when eyewitness testimony start SOUNDING TOO MUCH ALIKE, that is a sign of COERCION by those witnesses, and their testimony actually takes a nose dive in the credibility department.
Why do you ignore the interviews of your own witnesses from 5 years ago? when the event was fresh in their minds?
Hey Lyte,
Do you have a target date at which you'll assess the success or otherwise of your project?
I mean, it's out there now...well all except the RE edition, but I know you're still busy editing that to fit the SG version, but once that's released too, and you've contacted all of the worlds media, and the 'alternative' media too, at what point will you decide to give it up?
Consider, if it's not received any coverage and no legal action has occured in say 6 months from now (assuming you release the RE edition within those six months) will you reconsider just how conclusive your evidence is, or will you just blame the je....zionists and chemtrails?
Be hones....... be as truthfu......... just fess up now.
Do you have a target date at which you'll assess the success or otherwise of your project?
I mean, it's out there now...well all except the RE edition, but I know you're still busy editing that to fit the SG version, but once that's released too, and you've contacted all of the worlds media, and the 'alternative' media too, at what point will you decide to give it up?
Consider, if it's not received any coverage and no legal action has occured in say 6 months from now (assuming you release the RE edition within those six months) will you reconsider just how conclusive your evidence is, or will you just blame the je....zionists and chemtrails?
Be hones....... be as truthfu......... just fess up now.
Of course.
They have to be.
It's impossible for both claims to be simultaneously true.
I have a big long list of reasons in the OP of why it makes INFINITELY more sense to believe their placement of the plane over their account of the alleged "impact" that they all admitted was obscured by the fireball.
So I'm going about my business, just like any other day and suddenly realise I'm hearing something very loud approaching and within a split second I see a huge **** off plane flying over my head and watch as it hits a large building in a fiery ball of fire.
Now, which part of that am I going to be more aware of?
1. The approach of the plane, which occured while I was busy doing something else
2. The impact of the plane which occured while it had my full attention
You've got a 50/50 chance of getting this one right. Give it a try.
To suggest we "coerced" these Pentagon Police officers into giving us this testimony on camera about such an historically important and politically charged event is ludicrous and you know it.
This is why true critical thinkers like Greening ridicule your approach to 9/11 data.
Lagasse even said he was on the starboard side of the plane way back back in 2003.
I have not ignored their original testimony at all.
They both clarified for everyone on camera that they did NOT see the light poles get clipped.
Nothing from their original testimony contradicts their placement of the plane on the north side of the station.
Last edited:
Hyperviolet
Damnum Fatale
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 989
Lyte,
im sorry, but until you actually have a witness to a flyover this conclusion is bankrupt.
North Side of Citgo ≠ Flyover
im sorry, but until you actually have a witness to a flyover this conclusion is bankrupt.
North Side of Citgo ≠ Flyover
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
There is no reason why you shouldn't list who you sent your information. There is nothing for you to lose and everything to gain. Instead you refuse, that suggests to me either you haven't sent the information to anyone, or you only sent it to people or groups sympathetic to your cause.
What are you afraid of? Why won't you tell us who you sent the information? I believe you lying and haven't sent it to anyone who might view your information critically.
Don't worry after Greening's new ideas were slapped down, he ridiculed the physorg board members also.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&view=findpost&p=192176
Last edited:
Creating a hypothetical scenario in order to REMOVE the situation from the facts is a strange approach to determining truth.
Their accounts are COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY what the official story needs to be.
The plane would have had to come in at a different trajectory and they would not have witnessed OR heard things they way they did if the official story was true.
It would be odd if even ONE of these witnesses got it so wrong.
But for ALL of them to make the exact same drastic "mistake"??
It's not logical.
This is why it it makes no sense to suggest that their memories simultaneously went on the fritz in the same manner.
Ok fine.
But if you have read the ASCE report you must understand that:
north side of the citgo = plane not causing physical damage
This is a fact.
Feel free to provide your own alternative theory for what happened to the plane.
In the meanwhile we know that people DID see the plane fly over but they were simply told it was a second plane.
But you're depending on testimony about an event which happened suddenly and out of the blue and ignoring testimony about that which happened after the initial "shock" experience of seeing a low flying passenger jet flying over their heads.
You have hinged your entire project upon some very suspect testimony from people who can very easily be shown to be mistaken (in one instance by not even being able to recollect at which pump the witness was standing or where the bloody poles and taxi cab were).........
...so how long are you going to give it before you decide that the world just doesn't take your evidence seriously?
I mean, this was supposed to shatter our collective earths and we were all going to be offering you our humble apologies, and it just aint happening.
Not here and not at LCF.
So now it's up to the world at large.
How's that working out for you?
I don't care what you think and I am not afraid of anything.
We are in contact with media and authorities and will continue to be in contact with them.
This data is so solid because it is NOT our claim!
It is what the eyewitnesses claim.
We are 100% confident talking with media and authorities in regards to this data PARTICULARLY since the data is provided FROM the relevant authorities!
Lyte, they are MISTAKEN
And in at least one case, you cooked the 'evidence' of the plane flying over the navy annexe by failing to accurately marry two different views of the annexe and then projected a line which was at variance with your witness testimony.
It does not reflect well upon you.
BTW, hows the RE edition coming along? (You DO realise that the RE edition doesn't need music right?)
I know that to you the bubble of this forum and LCF is the entire world but sorry to burst it for you.........................................it's not.
I knew most of you guys would live in denial in regards to this testimony but I also believe that some of you are shaken by it. Those few are afraid to admit it or simply take refuge in the groupthink so they can continue to feel comfy cozy in the denial.
This testimony is rock solid and any true unbiased critical thinker will understand how the chances of them all making the exact same DRASTIC mistake due to "memories" is absurd.
whooooa there sparky! That's just the point I have made to you on two seperate posts now.
What are you going to do if (when) the world at large ignores your project?
How long are you going to give it?