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

[TheGrunion]

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.

Unfortunately for you, the rest of us do not abide by your Bizzaro World logic.

I hope you're not putting to much effort into whatever mumbo-jumbo you are working on. At the end of the day its going to amount to less than a hill a beans, and make no measurable impact to the real world whatsoever.

That sad part is that deep down inside you already know this to be true.

 

[Gravy]

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

Just trolling then? Why?

 

[maccy]

The evidence I have will prove that some are lying.

I don't believe you.

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

In the way that is most appropriate, yes

The question in the original post is quite clear.

And tautologous and, therefore, useless

Stay on topic please.

Oh, we are on topic - you just don't understand how.

 

[Pardalis]

Lyte, you and your pathetic friend start a thread about an hypothetical scenario, and we are supposed to give our opinion on it, right ? Well, we have but yet you criticise us for not being critical thinkers. Wow.

Critical thinkers on what BTW? I you read the thread again, there have been critical responses to the OP, but yet none of them satisfy you. That's because you are the one who is not willing to have an honest discussion, you are the one holding to your belief, regardless of our opinion on a non-subject. You are the one hiding the evidence you claim is so compelling.

What the f* do you want from us?

 

[Lyte Trip]

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?

Incorrect.

Very few of them refute my claims.

Most of the ones that I have spoken with regarding specific details in person support my claims.

I have weighed both sides of the evidence and my claims are based on what I have more support for.

Show me a witness that claims the plane was on the south side of the station.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lyte, you and your pathetic friend start a thread about an hypothetical scenario, and we are supposed to give our opinion on it, right ? Well, we have but yet you criticise us for not being critical thinkers. Wow.

Critical thinkers on what BTW? I you read the thread again, there have been critical responses to the OP, but yet none of them satisfy you. That's because you are the one who is not willing to have an honest discussion, you are the one holding to your belief, regardless of our opinion on a non-subject. You are the one hiding the evidence you claim is so compelling.

What the f* do you want from us?

Most of you have dodged the question but continue to post in this thread like fiends.

I want you to stick to the topic or let the thread die.

 

[Bell]

Incorrect.

Very few of them refute my claims.

Most of the ones that I have spoken with regarding specific details in person support my claims.

I have weighed both sides of the evidence and my claims are based on what I have more support for.

Show me a witness that claims the plane was on the south side of the station.

Show US a witness. Any witness.
Preferably one that states AA77 DID NOT hit the Pentagon, and the lightpoles were planted by gummit employees.

 

[Bell]

Most of you have dodged the question but continue to post in this thread like fiends.

I want you to stick to the topic or let the thread die.

Let it die.

You are trolling, and having a good laugh over the backs of the victims.

 

[maccy]

Incorrect.

Very few of them refute my claims.

Most of the ones that I have spoken with regarding specific details in person support my claims.

I have weighed both sides of the evidence and my claims are based on what I have more support for.

Show me a witness that claims the plane was on the south side of the station.

It doesn't matter unless you can also explain the physical evidence.

 

[Pardalis]

Incorrect.

Very few of them refute my claims.

Most of the ones that I have spoken with regarding specific details in person support my claims.

How can one have a serious discussion with someone who responds like this?

How can we respond to something we haven't seen yet? And you criticize our lack of judgement?

All you do is state that your evidence will compell us. That's your entire argument. We haven't seen your evidence, so HOW THE F* ARE WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FREAKING HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT IT?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Show US a witness. Any witness.
Preferably one that states AA77 DID NOT hit the Pentagon, and the lightpoles were planted by gummit employees.

I told you what I will prove.

That the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

That is enough to show that 9/11 was an inside job.

Either you demonstrate how this is incorrect or you ultimately lose this debate.

 

[maccy]

Most of you have dodged the question but continue to post in this thread like fiends.

I want you to stick to the topic or let the thread die.

We aren't here for your benefit.

But I'm sure we'd stop posting if you did.

 

[Gravy]

Incorrect.

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

Excuse me? The light poles have now moved to the north of the Citgo? Okey, dokey, let's see your evidence of that.

[To save the strain on viewers' eyes, I have not included the three laughing dogs that I really, really wanted to post here.]

Lyte, what is the first rule of holes?

 

[Bell]

I told you what I will prove.

That the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

That is enough to show that 9/11 was an inside job.

Either you demonstrate how this is incorrect or you ultimately lose this debate.

Where are the passengers, crew and plane of AA77?
What knocked over the lightpoles?

 

[332nd]

The question in the original post is quite clear.

Well personaly I would think that the official report made a mistake. But the problems there are, eyewitness that agree with the official report, physical evidence that agrees with the official report, and the utter lack of any evidence that goes against the official report.

 

[Lyte Trip]

How can one have a serious discussion with someone who responds like this?

How can we respond to something we haven't seen yet? And you criticize our lack of judgement?

All you do is state that your evidence will compell us. That's your entire argument. We haven't seen your evidence, so HOW THE F* ARE WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FREAKING HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT IT?

The only thing we are asking you to have an honest discussion about is the hypothetical question of whether or not you would accept that 9/11 was an inside job if you were convinced the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

Care to participate?

 

[Pardalis]

Lyte, what is the first rule of holes?

Keep your fingers out of them?

 

[Bell]

Lyte, what is the first rule of holes?

It starts with ass?

 

[maccy]

I told you what I will prove.

I still don't believe you are capable of proving anything.

That the plane flew on the north side of the citgo.

That is enough to show that 9/11 was an inside job.

No it isn't.

Either you demonstrate how this is incorrect or you ultimately lose this debate.

You have to account for all of the events around the Pentagon that day and for all the physical evidence that was left. That's why you can't prove anything just from witness evidence.

 

[332nd]

Lyte, what is the first rule of holes?

5 ft deep 5ft wide.