*split* Lyte's proof that the Lloyd England's experience is false

Lyte Trip said:
Yes we believe the data is anomalous and yes we believe this is worthy of attention but this has no bearing whatsoever on the testimony we have presented in The PentaCon or our hypothesis.
Click to expand...

So you will not be responsible for how reality intersects with your theory. Your willingness to throw the FDR data over the side if it conflicts with your own bias is duly noted, no matter how diplomatically you try to express it.

On Edit: And the Pentagon trailer plant IS your hypothesis. Isn't it? How else does the light pole evidence get planted? How else does the cab get put into place? If the physical evidence is planted, then it had to be actually put into place, right? That is your theory, right?

So your explanation for the plant continuing despite the certain knowledge of the planters that the plane had not followed the correct path would be what exactly?
 
Last edited:
qarnos said:
Interesting theory, but I
Click to expand...

Surealism is nice

but it has a great price

when there are no facts

all the hacks

can make it up in a trice



Think not lest ye be thought about.
 
boloboffin said:
On Edit: And the Pentagon trailer plant IS your hypothesis. Isn't it? How else does the light pole evidence get planted? How else does the cab get put into place? If the physical evidence is planted, then it had to be actually put into place, right? That is your theory, right?

So your explanation for the plant continuing despite the certain knowledge of the planters that the plane had not followed the correct path would be what exactly?
Click to expand...

Yes the physical damage had to have been staged.

There are 2 potential reasons why the plane was not on the correct path:

1. A mistake.

2. The plane was deliberately off the path so if anyone saw it fly over it would be confused with a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered off" immediately after the explosion.

In light of the cover stories and because it was so easy to find people on the street that saw the plane and described it as "white" number 2 makes the most sense.
 
Lyte Trip said:
They THINK it flew into the Pentagon.

Or...

They are lying.

The plane was on the North side and pulled up.

It did not fly into the building.
Click to expand...

Sorry Lyte. Back to the original point of this thread.

You claim Lloyd Englands account, that is far more horrific than you or any of us can imagine, was fabricated, and the man is a liar.

You are a disgrace.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Sorry Lyte. Back to the original point of this thread.

You claim Lloyd Englands account, that is far more horrific than you or any of us can imagine, was fabricated, and the man is a liar.

You are a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want.

It's backed up with facts.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plus Lloyd's account is physically impossible.

Sorry that the implications of this are so upsetting.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes the physical damage had to have been staged.

There are 2 potential reasons why the plane was not on the correct path:

1. A mistake.

2. The plane was deliberately off the path so if anyone saw it fly over it would be confused with a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered off" immediately after the explosion.

In light of the cover stories and because it was so easy to find people on the street that saw the plane and described it as "white" number 2 makes the most sense.
Click to expand...

There is always the third way.

But that way lies reality
 
Lyte Trip said:
Call it what you want.

It's backed up with facts.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plus Lloyd's account is physically impossible.

Sorry that the implications of this are so upsetting.
Click to expand...

Why did the whole Lloyd thing happen?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Call it what you want.

It's backed up with facts.

No it isn't

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

No they do not

Plus Lloyd's account is physically impossible.

No it is not

Sorry that the implications of this are so upsetting.

Sorry your life is so meaningless you have to take it out on a taxi driver.
Click to expand...

You are a disgrace
 
I <3 argument by assertion.

Anyway.

A = Lagasse and Brook's testimony is correct.
~A = Lagasse and Brook's testimony is false.
B = North of Citgo path is true.
~B = North of Citgo path is false.
C = Lloyd's account is true.
~C = Lloyd's account is false.
D = Official story is true.
~D = Official story is false.

Lyte's Reasoning:

A
A-->B
Therefore B

Then given B
B-->~C
and
B-->~D

Therefore ~C and ~D

Problem

If C
C-->~B
Therefore ~B

Given then ~B
~B-->~A
Therefore ~A

D does not follow from above but ~A certainly does, as well as ~B.

Conclusion
Lyte believes that A is true. If so, then his conclusions follow.
However, C could also be true. If it were, then ~A must follow.

Lyte refuses to see the validity of the problem.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes the physical damage had to have been staged.

There are 2 potential reasons why the plane was not on the correct path:

1. A mistake.

2. The plane was deliberately off the path so if anyone saw it fly over it would be confused with a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered off" immediately after the explosion.

In light of the cover stories and because it was so easy to find people on the street that saw the plane and described it as "white" number 2 makes the most sense.
Click to expand...

So you believe that the falsified physical evidence on the ground was deliberately placed where the plane was not going to fly. All of it - from the light poles to the Pentagon crash scene - all of it was deliberately staged somewhere where the planners knew the plane was not going to fly.

You think that this makes the most sense.
 
tsig said:
Why did the whole Lloyd thing happen?
Click to expand...

To support the lie. Plain and simple.

They fabricated the physical damage and bottom line the light poles were the most convincing physical evidence that there was a plane.

When the "missile" theories came out nobody was paying attention to the light poles.

Just the lack of debris, anomalous damage to the building etc.

But obviously a missile couldn't have knocked those poles down.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

This is propaganda gold because clearly it's pretty hard to imagine a guy like Lloyd being involved.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Call it what you want.

It's backed up with facts.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plus Lloyd's account is physically impossible.

Sorry that the implications of this are so upsetting.
Click to expand...

Every time you lie...I'm gonna bring out the badger.
 

Attachments

  • badger.jpg
    badger.jpg
    4.2 KB · Views: 102
Lyte Trip said:
To support the lie. Plain and simple.

They fabricated the physical damage and bottom line the light poles were the most convincing physical evidence that there was a plane.

When the "missile" theories came out nobody was paying attention to the light poles.

Just the lack of debris, anomalous damage to the building etc.

But obviously a missile couldn't have knocked those poles down.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

This is propaganda gold because clearly it's pretty hard to imagine a guy like Lloyd being involved.
Click to expand...

Real people died here Lyte. Real people were traumitised.

And you do all this to try and copy Loose Change.

Sick.
 
Innocent people are dying EVERY DAY because of 9/11.

Countless 10's of thousands.

We aren't copying anybody.

We are reporting the evidence in a quest for justice for those that have been and will be killed because of this heinous crime.
 
Lyte Trip said:
To support the lie. Plain and simple.

They fabricated the physical damage and bottom line the light poles were the most convincing physical evidence that there was a plane.

When the "missile" theories came out nobody was paying attention to the light poles.

Just the lack of debris, anomalous damage to the building etc.

But obviously a missile couldn't have knocked those poles down.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

This is propaganda gold because clearly it's pretty hard to imagine a guy like Lloyd being involved.
Click to expand...

So the Lloyd thing was done for propaganda effect?

How far do we have to go to fool the rubes?

Can I have the playbook? this is getting cinfusing.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Innocent people are dying EVERY DAY because of 9/11.

Countless 10's of thousands.

We aren't copying anybody.

We are reporting the evidence in a quest for justice for those that have been and will be killed because of this heinous crime.
Click to expand...

How are people dying every day because of 9/11?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom