[Moderated] So What Would You Think If This Were True?

[Lyte Trip]

You have assumed those guys to be telling lies as it does not fit with your conclusion. You have a conclusion and are purposefully removing anything that contradicts it. Your doing nothing that a real researcher or investigator would do. Your doing your 'experiments' and 'research' completely backwards. Please stay away from Australia. Keep on smoking hippies.

Incorrect.

I have gone over each and every witness account 100's of times and attempted to contact virtually all of them.

My conclusions are the result of field research and will be irrefutable.

This much I can guarantee.

My conclusions do not require most witnesses to be lying.

 

[Garb]

Incorrect.

I have gone over each and every witness account 100's of times and attempted to contact virtually all of them.

My conclusions are the result of field research and will be irrefutable.

This much I can guarantee.

My conclusions do not require most witnesses to be lying.

What about the FDR data and the concrete evidence?

And the plane parts?

 

[Arus808]

Incorrect.

You have zero that place the plane south of the citgo.

it doesn't matter. two people from citgo, who probably wasn't facing the correct way, and probably couldn't tell what was north or south in that chaotic day are probably "reflecting" on what they thought they saw.

however, hundreds along the beltway that passes in front of the pentagon, INCLUDING the cab driver, saw the plane and witnessed its impact.

THAT:S what matters.

what ever evidence you have is moot, and of course subject to scrutiny. since you can't provide that evidence your postering is duly noted.

 

[Bell]

My conclusions do not require most witnesses to be lying.

Not most, but many?

 

[Lyte Trip]

What happened to the passengers, crew and plane of AA77?
What knocked down the lightpoles?

Those will be important questions to ask the USG when you are convinced that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

Good thinking!

 

[Gravy]

Gravy,
I haven't updated that myspace page in months. I will correct it to 18 feet.

So, Mr. elite researcher, the wings made no hole? The ASCE report got it all wrong? Please show your evidence.

I have not accused Mike Walter, Father McGraw, or Lloyd of anything specific but yes I have considered the possibility that they are exaggerating, deducing, or even lying.

Don't forget mind control and hypnosis. Now, please present your evidence that leads you to believe that these witnesses are not credible and that they may be government shills and under the influence of mind-altering government programs. All theories are not equally valid, Lyte. Occam's razor applies.

Why not claim that these witnesses, whose accounts explicitly disagree with your claims, may be suffering from chemtrail exposure? That's a serious question, and I hope you'll give a serious answer.

If 9/11 was an inside job as we are set to prove.....some witnesses had to be lying.

Why? Why do you assume that with two contradictory accounts about one event, told five years after the event, one must be a lie? Do mistakes, misjudgments, and degradations of memories happen?

Is this the case with all contradictory accounts about all events, or does it apply only to your Pentagon theories? For instance, if two people are describing the color of a car that they recently saw, and one says it was dark green and the other that it was dark blue, does one have to be lying?

I hope you will think hard about that, Lyte.

Everyone will be in a position very soon to make this determination on their own.

You will be forced to admit 9/11 was an inside job or call witnesses liars.

Yawn. Since you have no clue about how to gather evidence, interpret evidence, or how to put new evidence in context with existing evidence, I am quite sure that I will be forced to do no such thing. You do not appear to have any idea of how an actual investigation works. I feel bad for you.

 

[Garb]

Those will be important questions to ask the USG when you are convinced that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

Good thinking!

No no no. We are asking you to tell us what could have happened to them if it wasn't a plane. Cause no one saw any government agents plant this evidence.

 

[Arus808]

I promise that you will not be able to legitimately use that excuse as an out.

acutally its a valid claim. people's memories deterioate over time and are influenced by what they do, and hear, and whom they speak to or read. and slowly what they 'remember' isn't what they actually saw that day.

that's why claims made at the TIME of the event carries more weight than claims made 5 years later.

Even in court cases where eyewitnesses are brought in to testify for a crimes commited years ago, aren't solely relied upon. Prosecutors are always able to back up those eyewitnesses with PHYSICAL evidence.

And that's hwere you fail. Physcial evidence do nto back up your claims.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Not most, but many?

Can't say for sure but certainly some.

 

[Arus808]

Can't say for sure but certainly some.

speculative...and in court that is not admissable nor is any type of testimony
prove they were lying, otherwise retract that claim

 

[Lyte Trip]

I'm not here to debate the evidence because it hasn't been presented yet.

You will all see how the claim is irrefutable when the evidence is released.

In the mean time.....you can choose to participate in the thread by HYPOTHETICALLY assuming the evidence as accurate or there is no point in continuing the discussion.

 

[Garb]

I'm not here to debate the evidence because it hasn't been presented yet.

You will all see how the claim is irrefutable when the evidence is released.

In the mean time.....you can choose to participate in the thread by HYPOTHETICALLY assuming the evidence as accurate or there is no point in continuing the discussion.

I got a better idea.


How bout you give us the evidence?

 

[maccy]

You will be forced to admit 9/11 was an inside job or call witnesses liars.

False dichotomy. They don't have to be liars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness
http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connecte...illa05.xml&pos=portal_puff1&_requestid=347199
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html
http://psy.ucsd.edu/~hflowe/eyetest.htm
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc51.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//////shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05130/501866.stm
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Plus:

It doesn't matter what your witnesses say if you can't explain the physical evidence. You need more than some witness that, 5 years later, say they saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo station. You need a plausible explanation for everything that was found at the Pentagon and in the surrounding area.

If you say that the lightpoles were faked and that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon and something else did you have to show evidence for those things.

In the absence of evidence for those things it will be just be assumed that the witnesses you produce have it wrong. And this will be assumed by the media and the world at large - not just by the people here.

 

[Lyte Trip]

speculative...and in court that is not admissable nor is any type of testimony
prove they were lying, otherwise retract that claim

The evidence I have will prove that some are lying.

Now are you going to participate in the thread or not?

The question in the original post is quite clear.

Stay on topic please.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm not here to debate the evidence because it hasn't been presented yet.

You will all see how the claim is irrefutable when the evidence is released.

In the mean time.....you can choose to participate in the thread by HYPOTHETICALLY assuming the evidence as accurate or there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Complete idiocy.

 

[Lyte Trip]

I got a better idea.


How bout you give us the evidence?

I promise to create a new thread for that when it is ready.

In the mean time....care to particpate in this one?

 

[Garb]

The evidence I have will prove that some are lying.

Now are you going to participate in the thread or not?

The question in the original post is quite clear.

Stay on topic please.

Does this mean that I can make a thread speculating if George Bush is a woman?


I mean, if it were true, you would all be forced to consider everyone who has ever dealt with him a liar.

 

[Bell]

Those will be important questions to ask the USG when you are convinced that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station.

Good thinking!

For the so-many-time, I'm asking YOU. You claim AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. You would be a lousy investigator if you did not try to find out what did happened to the passengers, the crew and the plane.

And did you inform the victims families yet? I hope you are very, very proud of the fact that you claim their loved ones did not die at the Pentagon. What about Barbara's phonecall? Did she lie, while she knew the gummit was going to off her? Or did Ted lie, was he in on it, and had no problems that his wife was killed?

You disgusting [rule8] [rule8].

 

[Gravy]

Incorrect.

I have gone over each and every witness account 100's of times and attempted to contact virtually all of them.

And when their accounts explicitly refute your claims, rather than putting them in context you say they may be government agents or under the influence of mind-altering government programs.

And when given the chance to view physical evidence, you decline.

Is that how an investigator functions, Lyte? Can you name a legitimate investigator who would behave that way? Can you?

 

[maccy]

I'm not here to debate the evidence because it hasn't been presented yet.

You will all see how the claim is irrefutable when the evidence is released.

In the mean time.....you can choose to participate in the thread by HYPOTHETICALLY assuming the evidence as accurate or there is no point in continuing the discussion.

I think it is HYPOTHETICALLY impossible for you to recognise correct evidence and that your cognitively incable of proving anything.

That's my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it.