ThePentaCON releases trailer

Pardalis said:
Yes, please answer that Lyte.

Could they just as well have been fooled to believe that they saw the plane come in from the North of the CITGO?
Click to expand...

Let me know if you actually believe this after hearing the testimony but I sure can't fathom it as a possiblity.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I forgot it.

But I will most likely lose interest by the time you repost it again anyway so I suggest you don't bother!
:p
Click to expand...

It should be one of the most interesting questions in your entire investigation.

Much like before- you claim to be scientific- and then scoff at the basics of science.

This is exactly why you're going to be laughed at when your video is released. That does not concern you? You're going to be torn to shreds... you can't even answer simple questions on logic and science... but you think you're going to take on the world?

Come on- quit playing games and just answer my question. It really does not need to be this difficult.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes.

Because it flew on the north of the citgo.
Click to expand...

Really ?

So if you were in power and somebody came up to you and Said.

`Listen I’ve a got a plan, it goes like this. We are going to fly a plane full of innocent people towards the Pentagon, at high speed, then fly it over it, hope nobody notices or nobody films it. We are going to do this in broad day light in full view of everybody. Before hand we are going knock over some lamp posts. Then we are going to plant body parts, plane parts and the black boxes with the wrong data on then inside the Pentagon.`

What you do Lyle? would you say

  • Great plan go for it.
  • Don’t be stupid.
 
Lyte,

Why are you ignoring the mountain of physical evidence that supports the official story?

Why are you taking eyewitness testimony over physical evidence? Physical evidence > eyewitness testimony.
 
stateofgrace said:
Really ?

So if you were in power and somebody came up to you and Said.

`Listen I’ve a got a plan, it goes like this. We are going to fly a plane full of innocent people towards the Pentagon, at high speed, then fly it over it, hope nobody notices or nobody films it. We are going to do this in broad day light in full view of everybody. Before hand we are going knock over some lamp posts. Then we are going to plant body parts, plane parts and the back boxes with the wrong data on then inside the Pentagon.`

What you do Lyle, would you say

  • Great plan go for it.
  • Don’t be stupid.
Click to expand...

If you were presented a plan that said.......we're going to invade and occupy Iraq and spout off whatever lies we need to in order to make this happen while killing as many people and spending as much money as it takes would you say......

Great plan go for it.
Don’t be stupid.
 
Coritani said:
Lyte,

Why are you ignoring the mountain of physical evidence that supports the official story?

Why are you taking eyewitness testimony over physical evidence? Physical evidence > eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...

Because truth is not math.

Physical evidence is only > eyewitness testimony when the physical evidence wasn't staged or provided by the perpetrator.
 
stateofgrace said:
Really ?

So if you were in power and somebody came up to you and Said.

`Listen I’ve a got a plan, it goes like this. We are going to fly a plane full of innocent people towards the Pentagon, at high speed, then fly it over it, hope nobody notices or nobody films it. We are going to do this in broad day light in full view of everybody. Before hand we are going knock over some lamp posts. Then we are going to plant body parts, plane parts and the black boxes with the wrong data on then inside the Pentagon.`

What you do Lyle? would you say

  • Great plan go for it.
  • Don’t be stupid.
Click to expand...

Great post btw. :)
 
Totovader said:
But you claimed there were no contradictions...

Again, how do you resolve these contradictions? What evidence did your investigation rule out- and by what means?

Not that difficult of a question, is it?
Click to expand...

Lyte Trip said:
It sounds like it's on the right track and I will try to answer but you need to clarify.

What contradictions?
Click to expand...

You said the following:

Lyte Trip said:
Perhaps not but what IS mutually exclusive is flying on the north of the citgo while toppling the light poles and damaging the building as outlined in the ASCE report.
Click to expand...

So- according to you- you have 4 (wow) eyewitnesses which directly contradict known scientific data, physical evidence, and OTHER eyewitnesses.

I ask you again- how do you resolve this contradiction? By what means did you exclude the physical and scientific evidence- and instead conclude that 4 people were [apparently] correct, and everyone else is wrong- including things which cannot be wrong?

What evidence did you consider in contradiction of your theory- and how did you exclude it?

You've already indicated that physical evidence wouldn't be good enough, other eyewitnesses are waved off at the flick of your wrist, and while claiming there are no contradictions, there are: according to you, your eyewitnesses do not support the scientific explanation.
 
Lyte Trip said:
If you were presented a plan that said.......we're going to invade and occupy Iraq and spout off whatever lies we need to in order to make this happen while killing as many people and spending as much money as it takes would you say......

Great plan go for it.
Don’t be stupid.
Click to expand...

Don't be stupid? You blatantly ignored all of the points brought up in the quote that you cited! All of the people who saw something hit the Pentagon, all the physical evidenc of a Boeing 757 at the crash site, and the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON SAW THE PLANE FLY OVER THE PENTAGON.....you ignore all of this and have the nerve to say "don't be stupid".

What the hell?
 
chippy said:
Aren't you claiming that the plane actually flew over the Pentagon?
Click to expand...

The evidence we will present will show that the plane flew on the north of the citgo station.

If you can demonstrate how this is possible while the plane still topples the light poles and damages the building as outlined in the ASCE report then by all means please do.

I don't believe you can.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Perhaps not but what IS mutually exclusive is flying on the north of the citgo while toppling the light poles and damaging the building as outlined in the ASCE report.
Click to expand...

Okay, so the mechanical damage and physical evidence have the flight path south of the citgo, while your eyewitnesses saw the plane to the north. But, the common denominator here is an impact into the Pentagon wall. That little tidbit is the same in both the south and north of the Citgo theories. So, it isnt the impact thats in question - its either the physical evidence, or the eyewitness testimony.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Because truth is not math.

Physical evidence is only > eyewitness testimony when the physical evidence wasn't staged or provided by the perpetrator.
Click to expand...

You have no direct evidence of staged physical evidence other than the fact that it does not fit with your theory. Right?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Because truth is not math.

Physical evidence is only > eyewitness testimony when the physical evidence wasn't staged or provided by the perpetrator.
Click to expand...

... provided that you have conclusive evidence that the physical evidence could have been staged, would have been staged, and was staged.

So again- we arrive at a monumental contradiction. One which you are wholly unprepared to resolve.

Maybe someone else from your film can speak on your video's behalf?
 
Lyte Trip said:
The evidence we will present will show that the plane flew on the north of the citgo station.

If you can demonstrate how this is possible while the plane still topples the light poles and damages the building as outlined in the ASCE report then by all means please do.

I don't believe you can.
Click to expand...

Thanks for not answering my question! Allow me to ask it again:

Are you claiming that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom