Man, there's no hip hop soundtrack!
ThePentaCON releases trailer
- Thread starter WilliamSeger
- Start date
Man, there's no hip hop soundtrack!
Are you new to this?
Yes thank you for demonstrating the physical damage flight path.
Too bad this is the OPPOSITE of what all of the witnesses at the citgo saw!
3 idiots who are telling you lies? You have 3 people, there are many who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. You have lost by vote alone - Darn we could vote your witnesses out. We can find 3 witnesses that saw they saw the plane hit, then we only need one to win. We win, we have them and they talked on 9/11. Did your witnesses sign a paper on 9/11? You have JDX, the insane pilot to help you with the FDR which proves you wrong if you would find a brain.
Now you have to prove the poles were not hit by 77, you have to prove the engines that hit he pentagon did not hit the pentagon, you have to prove there was not DNA in the pentagon.
And the big one is the FDR was found in the Pentagon, and you are using the FDR with a heading of 70 degrees which proves you have the wrong path.
You are also missing proof a fly over that the C-130 crew would have seen.
You are like a 50 to 100 time looser, due to the facts, that prove you wrong. The list of facts must number in the hundreds; makes you wrong out of the box.
Last edited:
Coritani
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 317
Sounds to me like you're taking eyewitness accounts over physical evidence. And that's a big no-no.
I am pretty sure a C-130 can not do 463KIAS near sea level and it has propellers. So Lyte can not use the C-130 to do anything but watch from a distance greater than 1000 AGL.
How many vote for meth being a problem with some of the crack
Citizen Investigation Team members?
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
I disagree, Totovader. When you watch the video, the car passed under an overpass about 5 seconds in.
There's only one overpass it could be - the 395 exit to Jefferson Davis southbound. The car is almost immediately under the shadow of the overpass at the start of the video.
I think that map indicates where the people were when they first became aware of the plane or the explosion. Where they started the video is closer to the overpass, where my X is.
Lyte Trip: 60 seconds? Bwa. Show your math.
The people filming that video marked their map at the point they saw the explosion. They looked right at it. They were in a prime place to see any plane, even one traveling 530 mph, flying over the Pentagon. Over halfway through that video, they spot what might be the C130 and zoom in on it. Clearly if they had seen a plane fly over the Pentagon, they would have done their best to get it into the shot.
Question: do these people (or anybody on that highway) claim that a plane flew over the Pentagon? Anybody see it? At 530 miles per hour, the plane was traveling .15 miles/sec.
Clearly, the Tribby family or anyone on that road had time to see any plane flying over the Pentagon. In fact, turning to see the explosion, the conclusion would have been hard to avoid that the plane had bombed the Pentagon. Does anybody report such a memory? Anybody?
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
Strawman. I never said it was irrelevant. What I was curious about is why you started pounding me with statements I never made. What footage? What are you talking about?
Yes, I don't get it- because you aren't making sense. At all...
Where was I wrong? (Where was I even trying to debate it).
Also, this ad hominem is not a response to my challenges about your statements. Please respond to those statements, instead of trying to attack me personally- which I can only assume is your way of diverting attention from the fact that you probably do not have an answer.
Strawman, again. I have done research- you have no reason to claim I have not. I am saying, it's unlikely we're going to see the plane in this footage if it was in a different location, at a different time, too far away, or the footage is not high enough of a quality.
Got it?
The same strawman- you're making statements on my behalf which make no sense, and which have no OP to them. Where did I make this claim?
If you need to lie in order to make your point, what does that make you?
Wrong- for the reasons I outlined above.
Apparently, you haven't. And yes- I get it- you "remember me". Problem is, you are assigning statements to me which I never made. Your tactics and diversions have not changed one bit- the difference is, now you will have a few thousand people ready to call you on it. I guess that makes you a little more pissy, and a little less likely to actually respond to any of my points.
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
We get it. You're the one who doesn't "get it".
We know what the implications of a "north of Citgo" path are. We just don't believe that any of your evidence will prove that such a path was the actual path.
A few witnesses five years later, after manipulation by a couple of twoofers, simply does not trump all the other witnesses and all the physical evidence.
This is what you simply do not get.
This is what you will never get.
We're not the ones with the problem here.
And your little movie with the crappy animation isn't going to change that. We know pretty much everything you're likely to say, and it's crap.
greyleonard
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 222
That's certainly plausible and would help explain a lot. Especially the pre-pubescent text effects.
It's easy for us to forget the probability that many people posting ridiculous BS on the internet are severely swerved.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
Lyte,
I woud suggest that before you make a fool of yourself (or a bigger fool), you should do some research into memory, and eyewitness testimony in court cases. Especially when, according to you, all your evidence is based on a extremely small oppossing view to the majority of the witnesses to the event, and in contradiction to the physical evidence. If you don't want to read, I would suggest the movie Final Cut as a good example of how memory can sometimes play tricks on us.
I woud suggest that before you make a fool of yourself (or a bigger fool), you should do some research into memory, and eyewitness testimony in court cases. Especially when, according to you, all your evidence is based on a extremely small oppossing view to the majority of the witnesses to the event, and in contradiction to the physical evidence. If you don't want to read, I would suggest the movie Final Cut as a good example of how memory can sometimes play tricks on us.
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,034
Your 'logic' makes no sense. You say that you have a "smoking gun"; "proof" that the plane did not impact the Pentagon. You have the evidence of that the most diabolical and deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil was actually pulled-off by members of our own government - killing thousands of innocent people.
Instead of presenting your evidence to others, you spend your time creating a website, generating a film, and even releasing a trailer. This isn't investigating - this is film-making. This is hype. This is false sensationalism.
So either -
A) everybody else (media, experts, eye-witnesses, engineers, first-responders, etc) is stupid, but two stoner kids figured it all out
or...
B) You are wrong
(In case you're wondering the correct answer is B)
And what research have you done, Lyte? How many eyewitnesses who SAW the plane hit the Pentagon did you talk to? How many eyewitnesses who SAW the plane fly in the official flight path did you talk to? Will you show your finished movie to your witnesses to make sure that you are not misrepresenting what they said?
You have done zero REAL research, Lyte. None.
So why do you ignore eyewitnesses who can verify those accounts?
Wrong.
Intelligent people don't need flashy CGI and wavy credits. Your movie (like Dylan's and the others) will only influence idiots who don't bother to check facts. We've already seen how many errors, conjectures, and out-right lies appear in Loose Change, yet that movie was treated as gospel when it arrived on the scene. It was only after debunkers continually tore it to shreds over and over that 9/11 deniers finally admit that 'there are some errors'.
You aren't gathering evidence for the victims, you are making a movie for public consumption. You are cherry picking data, and ignoring REAL evidence that contradicts your little fantasy. Your research is laughable. Your claim that it's all done for "justice" is fake as well.
Lyte. Grow up. If you realy want to make an impact, go back to school and find a rewarding career - maybe something that allows you to help others. What you are doing now is deplorable. You are a laughing-stock to both skeptics and troothers.
I can assure you that ten years from now your movie will have long been forgotten, a small number of hardcore troothers will still be screaming "inside job" without any progress at all, and you'll still be living in a country where you are free to make movies and absurd claims about the government killing it's own people.
Oh. I get it. I get it 100%.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Have you seen the full video?
How about the Doubletree video Which show no aircraft flying over the pentagon?
Do your witnesses agree with the flight path (specificaly the alititude) from your CG sequence? You seem to have the plane coming in pretty high over the CITGO station. I doubt they could have seen it coming in if they were under the gas pump canopy.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
BTW you really should make absolutely certain of your accusations before you accuse someone by name of complicity in mass murder. It's not a game, when you play with someone's life.
ETA:Unless it's the psychic Steve O'brien.
Last edited:
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
It already has. It told me that you're a sick dude who has an overblown sense of his own importance, is unable to see reality even when it kicks him upside the head, and should have shut up a long time ago, but has unmet ego needs that prevent it.
So sorry your video has been such a waste of time and effort for you.
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,158
Uuuh quick little thing to note Lyte:
You are withholding evidence that could possibly release people being held in Guantanamo Bay. People like Khalid Sheik Mohammad. You know, the patsies.
Withholding evidence that could lead to the freedom of the innocent and the justice for the perpetrators is a serious offense.
Lyte, you allege that your witness testimonies prove that Flight 77 did not strike light poles on its way to the Pentagon. Please explain these eyewitnesses.
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
You are withholding evidence that could possibly release people being held in Guantanamo Bay. People like Khalid Sheik Mohammad. You know, the patsies.
Withholding evidence that could lead to the freedom of the innocent and the justice for the perpetrators is a serious offense.
Lyte, you allege that your witness testimonies prove that Flight 77 did not strike light poles on its way to the Pentagon. Please explain these eyewitnesses.
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
So are these people lying Lyte Trip?
Yes, Lt. Col Steve O'Brien was the pilot of the C-130.
It's no secret Lyte, did you somehow think you had a scoop of some kind?
Profile: Steve O'Brien
Steve O'Brien participated in the following events as an active participant:
9.36 a.m. September 11, 2001: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77
Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside.
The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, claims he took off around 9:30 a.m., planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.”
A C-130 transport plane that has been sent to follow Flight 77 is trailing only a short distance behind the plane as it crashes. This curious C-130, originally bound for Minnesota, is the same C-130 that will be 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. A number of people see this plane fly remarkably close to Flight 77:
Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a “second plane that seemed to be chasing the first [pass] over at a slightly different angle.”
Keith Wheelhouse says the second plane was a C-130; two other witnesses aren’t certain. As Flight 77 descends toward the Pentagon, the second plane veers off west.
USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who saw the Pentagon explosion, says, “I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies.”
USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman sees a second plane but gives few details. Brian Kennedy, press secretary for a congressman, and others also see a second plane.
John O’Keefe is driving a car when he sees the Pentagon crash. “The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head. ... Then the plane—it looked like a C-130 cargo plane—started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.”
What footage??? How about the footage that the image you posted came from and that you sourced here:
"We should be able to determine how soon after the impact this shot of the Pentagon was taken. It's a frame from this video,
Wasn't this your entire contribution to this discussion? Do you want to forget it that fast now that I have forced you to argue how there is ZERO reason we should expect to see a flyover in this footage even if the plane flew over the building?
We don't see the c-130 in that footage therefore as you have outlined quite thoroughly already for everyone the multiple reasons why.......all of those reasons ALSO count for why we don't see the flyoever. Are you just pretending you don't get this because you have so thoroughly proven your own point invalid? I guess that is to be expected.
Yep. The c-130 was reported "shadowing" the jet and quickly veering off just after "impact". Obviously if this was the case we would see it in the footage if we should expect to see flyoever. The c-130 was also reported coming in about 60 seconds later. So......since the c-130 is not in the footage that means the flyover plane would also be long gone because it would have flown over first!
Basically your footage does not even come close to proving the plane didn't fly over.
So unless you have something else to offer you are done.
Good day.