• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New debunking site: ThePentaCON.INFO

WilliamSeger

Philosopher
WilliamSeger
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
5,092
This new site at http://ThePentaCON.INFO will be devoted specifically to debunking the theory advanced by Lyte Trip and the "Citizen Investigation Team" at thepentacon.com. (I have also created a forum at http://s6.invisionfree.com/ThePentaCON )

Over the next few days, while waiting for the "smoking gun" video to be released, I will be compiling the evidence that ThePentaCON theory asks us to believe has been faked. I welcome any help with that effort, or if you have any suggestions about the direction of this new site, please post them in this thread.

Lyte Trip provided a partial transcript of the argument that the video will use to convince people that the testimony of 4 witnesses should be sufficient to prove that all the other witnesses are either part of the conspiracy, under the influence of "mind control," or just aren't very observant (and that a huge amount of physical evidence has been faked):

Lyte Trip said:
1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)

2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.

(They only have to recall what side of the building the plane flew)

3) The perfect vantage point.

(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on what side of the station the plane flew then the witnesses that were on the station’s property)

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.

(The reason for this will be apparent when the identities of the witnesses are revealed.)

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.

(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims as they are able to re-enact their experience for the camera)

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

Number 6 is an important one. Ask yourself where you were on 9/11. Virtually everyone remembers in detail where they were, what they did, and how they felt on that day. Now imagine you were on the CITGO station property just a few feet away from the plane with a perfect view of the Pentagon. Does it seem feasible that you could be completely mistaken as to what side of the station the plane flew? Regardless of how you answer that question none of the witnesses we spoke with believe there is a remote possibility they could be mistaken in this regard.
Click to expand...
Since the alleged credibility of the "north of the Citgo" path is apparently the centerpiece of the video, I would like to have a page that specifically addresses these six points concisely and convincingly. Please post your best argument against any one or all of these points.
 
just one tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny little thing:

Although this film has not yet been released, a great deal ia already known about the contents
Click to expand...

otherwise - awesome!
 
Looking good so far.

The easiest one will be number one. The testimony of these four people, as interpreted by the CIT, contradicts every bit of testimony about people who saw the planes hit the light posts.
 
Lyte said:
1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)
Click to expand...
This may be technically true regarding the central claim he's trying to make ("These people claim Flight 77 passed north, not south, of the CITGO station."). The problem here is his own extrapolation of the witness accounts, which does contradict every "single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence".
 
I checked out the web page and the board and 'merc' has already signed up and made a post threatening litagation against the owner. "remove the site and this board or face litigation' he says.
 
Great idea, WilliamSeger, and great work so far!

I have to say that Merc threatening litigation strikes me as pretty funny. I mean, that would require hiring a lawyer, after all. And lawyers are all gubmint shills, aren't they? All part of the grand conspiracy to hide the real Troof from the masses, aren't they?

:dl:
 
Last edited:
alexg said:
I checked out the web page and the board and 'merc' has already signed up and made a post threatening litagation against the owner. "remove the site and this board or face litigation' he says.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope that all their DVD profits don't get eaten up in legal fees. :boxedin:
 
Well, they do want a viral spread of this documentary. A SLAP lawsuit would be great publicity.

Of course, you might want to include a paragraph stating the express purpose of parodying the original website in form while debunking its ludicrous claims factually and with great mirth.
 
LOL!!!
BOO HOO HOO we will sue you!!
BOO HOO HOO
Merc, grow a pair buddy!
 
alexg said:
I checked out the web page and the board and 'merc' has already signed up and made a post threatening litagation against the owner. "remove the site and this board or face litigation' he says.
Click to expand...

I had wondered whether this was a wasted effort, given Lyte Step-- er, sorry, I mean Lyte Trip's inability to deliver after months and months and MONTHS of running his mouth.

However, this bit of comedy alone makes it all worthwhile...

I wonder what he believes he can sue you for, anyway?
 
alexg said:
I checked out the web page and the board and 'merc' has already signed up and made a post threatening litagation against the owner. "remove the site and this board or face litigation' he says.
Click to expand...

"How dare you prove us wrong!"
 
Wow, Merc is your top board member. The most topics started and the most replies.

A+ for board participation. You should make him a mod or something ;)
 
HAHAA the jerk thought I threatened him when I said now that he knows what I look like perhaps we could meet up at ground zero.

Paranoia anyone?
 
Wait, hopefully he will sue. If only because it would require him to crawl out from behind the internet anonymity shield. Any legal document would have his real name.
 
Within an hour of being laughed at for this comment, he's changed his tune to being "flattered". This was just another hilariously immature childlike reaction. If he had a ball, he'd take it with him on his way home.
 
I've just been reading through the forum and man, Merc is a hell of a crybaby!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom