twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Lyte WANTS it to be a fraud. His world view depends on it. Anybody reading these threads can only come to this conclusion.
Mike Walter (USA Today) Responds to Conspiracists Misquoting Him
- Thread starter Totovader
- Start date
Lyte WANTS it to be a fraud. His world view depends on it. Anybody reading these threads can only come to this conclusion.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Lyte doesn't understand that when one makes an accusation the burden of proof is on that person. He just makes an accusation then runs away.
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,905
i just want to know who planted the lightpoles, and when they did it. Surely someone would have seen a truck coming along and dumping out some bent light poles a mere second or two after the crash
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Are you kidding? These folks are omnipotent. Don't you think they could manage to plant all that evidence and body parts in secret?
Are you kidding? These folks are omnipotent. Don't you think they could manage to plant all that evidence and body parts in secret?
What about trans-dimensional portals?
Everybody knows the military have been experimenting with these since the fifties.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Steady now, lyte explained this before. Everybody was looking at the Pentagon and missed the black ops people planting the lamp posts. It is so obvious.
The planners knew that everybody would not notice people planting fake damaged lamp posts.
It's so obvious, how did everybody miss it?
What a crock.
View of the Pentagon but NOT of the alleged impact.
The image you posted is clearly a telephoto shot from crystal city.
Totally misleading.
For people who don't know the air force memorial is directly in front of the navy annex.
Here is a shot of it from the roof of the VDOT:
It's that fork thing.
Now here is the view from the Navy Annex:
There is no way that anyone there INCLUDING Terry Morin saw the impact or light poles at all.
You can barely see the Pentagon.
Here is from the lawn in front of the Navy Annex on 9/11 that did NOT typically have pedestrians on it at all but obviously had curious onlookers there checking out the scene after the fact on 9/11:
(brooks was in front of the trees to the right in the parking lot)
Bottom line there was barely any place that had a detailed view of the alleged impact because the Pentagon is down at the bottom of a hill like that.
Although I will admit there would have been plenty of views of a plane flying over on 395 and in crystal city highrises......I have demonstrated why this was lost in the confusion of other planes etc in the illusion thread.
Send me their contact information.
I would certainly forward them the testimony of the citgo witnesses.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
It is nothing of the sort. Please, do not use a legal term to describe the content of your video, as (a) you know not what it means; and (b) the content of your video is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of anything.
Also, I notice that you continuously call the content of your video "testimony" and I notice that you repeatedly try to frame the content of your video in a manner suggestive of legal constructs. You do know, do you not, that in legal terms, "testimony" is evidence given under oath? There is nothing in your video to suggest that the interviewees were under oath.
It appears as though you are trying very hard to lend your video some semblance of credibility by deliberately framing your descriptions of it in terms that you know full well are inapplicable - because you realize that it has no credibility with respect to the premises upon which it was based.
I understand how difficult it must be for you to accept that not even your fellow conspiracy theory believers accept your video as even remotely compelling evidence of anything, but does that not give you pause to re-think things and consider that you just may be dead wrong? If not, it should. I mean, if even the diehard, heavy gauge tinfoil members of your group don't buy it... well...
Last edited:
These ARE the guys that place the plane north of the citgo bro.
Irrefutably.
They are 100% sure of it.
Lagasse would bet his life on it.
There is "less than 0% chance" the plane was on the south side of the station.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Ok fine!
That is STILL 100% irreconcilable with the physical damage path!
Don't you see?
There is ZERO room for error in the physical damage flight path.
Edward DEFINITIVELY has it crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike making it IMPOSSIBLE to hit the light poles and damage the building as outlined in the ASCE report!
Nobody has suggested that his estimated flight path is 100% mathematically accurate.
He couldn't even see the Navy Annex let alone the citgo station or Pentagon.
But the fact that he definitively has the ENTIRE PLANE crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike completely contradicts the official story and puts the plane on course with the BANK that Mike Walter and many other witnesses saw before the plane passed over the north side of the gas station.
GET IT NOW???
You mean the green one that is irreconcilable with the light poles and the physical damage?
Ok fine!
Proof once again that 9/11 was an inside job.
But guess what?
They are only human.
Turns out that 2 Pentagon Police officers happen to have the plane EVEN FURTHER north of the station proving that it was NOT further south of the station.
We get it. It's sheer lunacy--fantastic, preposterous nonsense. Imagine a conspirator proposing such madness to his cohorts.
"The physical damage was staged." Sure it was. How sad that people allow themselves to be reduced to this.
Last edited:
William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.
These two interviews over 5 years ago, when their minds were fresh, are proof you are telling lies now with lines all over the photos. Which is the correct line, or was their first story 5 years ago correct?
I know not why you make up stuff and then ignore thousands of pieces of evidence, including your own witnesses who proved you wrong 5 years ago. Sorry.
No one drew the turns you did! Too bad.
Ok mister contributes nothing of substance to the discussion but a single sentence filled with hollow hyperbole.
Quote where either of them ever contradicts the north side claim or drop this repetitive irrelevant post please.