ThePentaCON releases trailer

Cl1mh4224rd said:
It absolutely blows me away that "Trippy" here thinks four people constitutes a "high level of corroboration". Especially when there are significantly more who personally witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon.

There's really not more to be said beyond the obvious fact that Lyte has a serious disconnection with reality.
Click to expand...

Especially since his four also witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Maybe he'll invite you to his mom's basement for a logic party!
:D
Click to expand...

WOW!
Most sane people know that while in the middle of an argument NEVER EVER bring up the other dudes mom.
Yet another low that Lyte will easily sink to.
 
Lyte Trip said:
The testimony will speak for itself.

No jury would deny it.

I firmly believe that these witness will be subpoenaed.
Click to expand...

It is soooo disgusting of you the way you taunt this.
Dont you think that the families of those who died in particular would love nothing more then to see this happen yet you taunt this time and time again like a carrot.
You are a truly vile and disgusting human being for continuing to do this.
If this was truly the case then you would presented your evidence LONG AGO because the "fame" that would have come from being the first to bring about trials would have been too great to make you wait.
You are a truly vile and disgusting human being for continuing to do this.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Haha!

How awesome.

I would gladly submit myself to the new "powers that be" as the old oligarchy stands trial as a result of my "crime"!

Thanks for helping to materialize this by forcing it out in discussion!
Click to expand...

So if the new powers that be are so great like you seem to imply then why are they not spearheading a new investigation into 9-11?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Of the witnesses you present ONLY Wanda Ramey specifically claims that she actually "saw" the light poles get hit.

Stephen McGraw is one of the 13 witnesses we will present and he ADMITS to us that he did NOT see the light poles get hit but merely deduced it after the fact.

This is quite odd when no fewer than 2 of the downed light poles were directly in front of him.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/287e-1.jpg
Click to expand...

What is Stephen McGraw "guilty" of that he would have to "admit" anything to you?
Your lack of investigation skills is very apparent.
 
Lyte Trip said:
The level of corroboration is so high that there is virtually no possibility they are wrong.

This quote from our script describes the reasons why this testimony is so particularly strong:
Click to expand...

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...

Here's a another high level of witness corroboration....:p

The first psychological issue with witness testimony is "perception" — the question of whether external events are copied into memory accurately. The second is "memory" — the issue of whether initial perceptions, accurate or inaccurate, remain unchanged in the mind.
If human perception is questionable, human memory is at least equally questionable.

The tempting simple assumption is that people have "Flashbulb Memory." That just as a flashbulb fires and imprints an image permanently on film, an event is emblasioned on human memory and remains there unchanged. Alas, that's not the case.

In the first place, people can "remember" things that they could not have possibly seen. One example comes from Daniel Schacter's book Seven Sins of Memory, and concerns the 1992 crash of an El Al cargo plane into an apartment building in the Netherlands.

People throughout the country saw, read, heard, and talked about the catastrophe.

Ten months later a group of Dutch psychologists probed what members of their university communities remembered about the crash. The researchers asked a simple question: "Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building?" Fifty-five percent of respondents said "yes." In a follow-up study, two-thirds of the participants responded affirmatively.

They also recalled details concerning the speed and angle of the plane as it hit the building, whether it was on fire prior to impact, and what happened to the body of the plane right after the collision. These finding are remarkable because there was no television film of the moment when the plane actually crashed.

The psychologists had asked a blatantly suggestive question: they implied that television film of the crash had been shown. Respondents may have viewed television footage of the postcrash scene, and they probably read, imagined, or talked about what might have happened at the moment of impact. Spurred on by the suggestive question.
Click to expand...
 
It is very telling that no one has come along to defend Lyte.
this is a very open board and certainly it would be easy for one to register and come to the defence of Lyte.
This is just a further sign of the death of the truth movement.
 
It seems Dylan is growing tired of Lyte....
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3854&st=30

Dylan comments regarding Mike Walters:
I'm not here to character assassinate him, Lyte.
Click to expand...

Lyte responds back with:
When did I say anything about his character?
Click to expand...

A few moments later Lyte posts in regards to Mike Walter:
He honestly talks about the "bank" which 100% contradicts the official story so that makes me believe he is honest.

However I think he is embellishing impact details a bit in order to help quash all the questions about what happened.
Click to expand...

So Lyte you are calling him a liar but not attacking his character?
Do you think that when Mike Walter reads that he is going to be happy?

I hope that Dylan allows you to continue so that you can open up Dylan to more liability.
 
Ok one last post and that is it I promise!
:)

I posted on the Pentacon thread over at LC:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3854&st=60

This is what I posted:
Lyte Trip,
Why are you being so defensive with people here?
You will certianly face MUCH MUCH more critism as you release the final version.

Why is it that you drop out of a debate and never come back?
the case in point would be you completey dropping out of the discusions over at JREF

Is that you posting over at the DU using yet another handle?
Why do you do that?
The posting that was done over at the DU was very very childish.
What member of you "investigative team" is doing that if not you?
Why use constantly drop out of debats/discusstions never to return and use different handles/usernames at different boards?


QUOTE To suggest that 9/11 was an inside job but that NO witnesses were planted at all would be foolish.

You seem to think that ALOT of people are governemt plants ANYTIME it contradicts your agenda.
I could make up anything I wanted as long as those that are really telling the truth I label as "plants" "disinfo agents" ets.


QUOTE We made the animation BASED OFF their accounts so no. They describe it in detail and even illustrate it for us all on camera. You will see from the testimony that the animation is quite accurate as to their description. We will present another animation that is entirely from their point of view.


I will provide with a basic rule of investigation in big letters so it is easy for you to follow:
IF YOU DIDNT ON CAMERA SHOW THEM THAT ANIMATION SO THAT THEY COULO CONFIRM OR DENY THEN YOUR ENTIRE INVESTIGATION IS NOW SPECULATION AND INCOMPLETE.

I am quite certain that you did not do this.

Why would you claim to be an investigator yet fail to do this?
Why would you release an investigation that is so incomplete?


QUOTE Plus where is the proof that they were even present? Some may be completely fabricated accounts and there is will be plenty of evidence supporting this in our film.

Of course more claims of fabrication yet your movie will provide no substantial proof of this.


QUOTE It's ok.

Their arguments are hollow.

Ours are supported

What is with all the hostility?


QUOTE If you fail to see the importance of eyewitness testimony filmed on location then you are clearly not a 9/11 Pentagon researcher or someone that is interested in 9/11 Pentagon research

Do you need to be so hostile, why?


QUOTE Why would I accept an anomalous government supplied black box over honest American citizens?

You seem to be misusing the word "anomalous" here or you mean something else.
I have a feeling you ARE YET AGAIN implying that the black box was fabricated or planted.

Any E V I D E N C E of this?

Gee Lyte Trip you wouldn't be simply building a story around you preconceived beliefs, would you?

I am just asking questions here.


QUOTE We are simply demanding answers in regards to the discrepancies and they are refusing to give them.

Can you document how they have refused?
Who have you spoken with?
Do you have them on record as refusing?


QUOTE No we had some help from a really cool Italian dude named Pier.

Unfortunately I don't know what software he used.

Wow!!!
"a very cool italian dude"
You dont even know what software he used?
WOW!!
So I am right that you never showed that to your witnesses for them to either confirm or deny.

Why did you do such an incomplete and poor investigation?
Good luck as you, your film, and your "investigative team" are ripped to shreds
Click to expand...

Needless to say Lyte had me banned and what I posted removed within seconds.
Nazi Germany over there at LC...Congrats Dylan you have become what you claim to detest the most.
 
Bobert said:
Needless to say Lyte had me banned and what I posted removed within seconds.
Nazi Germany over there at LC...Congrats Dylan you have become what you claim to detest the most.
Click to expand...

Your only purpose on this forum and Loose Change has been to harrass me personally.

All anyone has to do is click on your post history and this is quite apparent.

This type of behavior is not tolerated in the real world and that doesn't make it "nazi germany".

If you learn one lesson out of all this Robert it should be that.

Everyone here knows that you worked with me because I was accused of using you as a sock puppet.

Why don't you tell everyone who else got tired of dealing with your behavior yesterday?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Your only purpose on this forum and Loose Change has been to harrass me personally.

All anyone has to do is click on your post history and this is quite apparent.

This type of behavior is not tolerated in the real world and that doesn't make it "nazi germany".

If you learn one lesson out of all this Robert it should be that.

Everyone here knows that you worked with me because I was accused of using you as a sock puppet.

Why don't you tell everyone who else got tired of dealing with your behavior yesterday?
Click to expand...

Lyte,
All of my posts within this thread are based on WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED.
What I posted at LC was BASED ON WHAT YOU HAD POSTED.
The fact that Dylan runs LC like a Nazi is very evident.
You engage in this type of behavior as well.
What occured yesterday Lyte?
Why do you bring that up?
I havent brought up ANYTHING personal about you.
Please feel free to open up that door and you will reap the consquences.
 
Actually by you implication it is enough for me.
You will soon regret opening up that door.

EEEEEEK please dont ignore me!!
 
Last edited:
I think Lyte and Bob's little spat might make an amusing premise for a sitcom.

Imagine if they were forced to share a New York apartment...
 
No Lyte feels that the only testimony that is "true" is that which supports his myth. The rest is the result of nearly a hundred people being fooled by the evil cabal.

TAM
 
Lyte Trip said:
Of the witnesses you present ONLY Wanda Ramey specifically claims that she actually "saw" the light poles get hit.

Stephen McGraw is one of the 13 witnesses we will present and he ADMITS to us that he did NOT see the light poles get hit but merely deduced it after the fact.
Click to expand...

I think I see the problem here. A witness statement is a statement of what the witness saw and heard. It isn't necessary that every sentence that describes something seen or heard is prefaced with "I saw..." or "I heard...". I think you're confusing evidence with "Simon Says".

So to summarise your case:
Four witnesses claim they saw a plane they believe to have been flight 77 fly north of the Citgo station and hit the Pentagon.
Ten witnesses claim they saw a plane they believe to have been flight 77 either knock down the light poles, or (in one case) follow a trajectory consistent with knocking down the flight poles, and hit the Pentagon.
Over a hundred other witnesses claim they saw a plane they believe to have been flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Two further witnesses claim they saw a plane too small to be flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Therefore flight 77 flew north of the Citgo station and did not hit the Pentagon.

Well, you certainly convinced me.

Dave
 
Bobert said:
Ok one last post and that is it I promise!
:)

I posted on the Pentacon thread over at LC:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3854&st=60

This is what I posted:

<snip>
QUOTE We made the animation BASED OFF their accounts so no. They describe it in detail and even illustrate it for us all on camera. You will see from the testimony that the animation is quite accurate as to their description. We will present another animation that is entirely from their point of view.


I will provide with a basic rule of investigation in big letters so it is easy for you to follow:
IF YOU DIDNT ON CAMERA SHOW THEM THAT ANIMATION SO THAT THEY COULO CONFIRM OR DENY THEN YOUR ENTIRE INVESTIGATION IS NOW SPECULATION AND INCOMPLETE.
Click to expand...

Actually, we know that the animation, in fact, deviates from the eyewitness accounts quite drastically. The eyewitnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon while the animation shows it missing. This completely invalidates the animation as a representation of the eyewitness accounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom