ThePentaCON releases trailer

Calcas said:
Yes, Lt. Col Steve O'Brien was the pilot of the C-130.



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.”
Click to expand...

Wow you're really good at google Calcas!

I'm impressed.

Thank you very much.

Since of course Kelly Knowles has it "chasing" flight 77 and passing over the pentagon at a "slightly different angle" if we should expect to see the flyover jet in the footage that toto sourced we should expect to see the c-130 as well.

No?

Do me a favor will ya?

Be a doll and use those awesome google skills to find Keith Wheelhouse's account for everyone. Ok? Thanks.

Gotta go to work now.

Bye!
 
The Doc said:
So are these people lying Lyte Trip?
Click to expand...

He has already answered this question with an emphatic "YES!" or they are "mistaken."

Also, he says that since THEY WEREN'T AT THE (apparently magic) CITGO STATION, their testimony is irrelevant.

The whole topic is absurd. IF no plane had ever crashed into the Pentagon (and there hadn't been tons of physical evidence, plane parts, bodies, DNA, flight recorder, etc etc) and we were dealing only with a flyover, then differeing eyewitness accounts "might" be interesting.

But, sadly, in this case, Lytes delusions of grandeur is sickening.
 
Lyte Traitor:

You've possessed, for 3 months, information which you believe proves the U.S. govt. participated in the Pentagon attack and what do you do. You make a movie.

You are a fraud. You are a traitor to the U.S., the people in the U.S., and the victims.

You are a mockery of a human being. You care about one thing, your ego. You can't possibly deny this since instead of trying to pursue justice you are on an ego trip making a movie.
 
Lyte Trip said:
"Smoking Gun Version" next week and "Researcher's Edition" soon after.



For the most part yes but the Researcher's Edition covers everything about the Pentagon.



Because it is physically impossible for the plane to have toppled the light poles and cause the damage to the building as outlined in the ASCE report.
Click to expand...

HOW IS THIS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
Here is a clue:
YOU MUST BE ABLE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!

What expert do you have to refute the ASCE report?
Ooooooh do you have another cute see saw picture to refute the ASCE report?
 
Calcas said:
He has already answered this question with an emphatic "YES!" or they are "mistaken."

Also, he says that since THEY WEREN'T AT THE (apparently magic) CITGO STATION, their testimony is irrelevant.

The whole topic is absurd. IF no plane had ever crashed into the Pentagon (and there hadn't been tons of physical evidence, plane parts, bodies, DNA, flight recorder, etc etc) and we were dealing only with a flyover, then differeing eyewitness accounts "might" be interesting.

But, sadly, in this case, Lytes delusions of grandeur is sickening.
Click to expand...

And just think this train wreck will only get worse after the release of the video.
Try pissing in a toliet Lyte instead of on the victims of 9-11
 
Lyte Trip said:
Wow you're really good at google Calcas!
Since of course Kelly Knowles has it "chasing" flight 77 and passing over the pentagon at a "slightly different angle" if we should expect to see the flyover jet in the footage that toto sourced we should expect to see the c-130 as well.
Bye!
Click to expand...

You really are a disgusting excuse for a human being, you know that?

So now the C-130 wasn't there? And the FAA lied about it too?

How many THOUSANDS of people would have to have been "IN ON IT" for your fantasy to work?

You know Dylan is licking his chops as well to watch your fantasy get destroyed on his forum. A skeptic reamed you over there and Dylan said "he wasn't taking sides" yet. LOL. I see you going the way of KT and getting suspended or banned for being disruptive.

Oh well, your little butt buddy jdx will always keep you around...
 
I really have no idea where Lyte is going with this C-130 thing. How does its presence prove that there was a flyover? Why would it need to be there?

And does Lyte remember what that C-130 pilot was doing? From the 9/11 commission report:

Reagan National controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir."
Click to expand...

That's right, he didn't say "looks like that aircraft just flew over the Pentagon, sir." But I forgot, he's in on it for some completely unexplainable and unrealistic reason. There's no reason for him to be in on it at all.

And I hope he did eventually reach Minnesota. It's a very pleasant place in September.
 
DavidJames said:
You've possessed, for 3 months, information which you believe proves the U.S. govt. participated in the Pentagon attack and what do you do. You make a movie.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not trying to compare the Pentacon movie effort, just offer some perspective.

Lots of people form motion pictures to TV shows to TV documentaries believed they found evidence that proved a conspiracy to murder a sitting president... ... ... and made a movie/video/show. Do you feel the same about them?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Be a doll and use those awesome google skills to find Keith Wheelhouse's account for everyone. Ok? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame Lyte, because history won't remember you, only a handful of people will laugh and say:" Wasn't he one of those idiots who thaught there was no plane in the Pentagon?".

Here, have a glimpse into your future:
88864571f5f0d59e1.png
 
Lyte Trip said:
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,
Click to expand...

That post was not made by me, bonehead. I was responding to boloboffin, quoting his original comment.

Your attention to detail is astonishing...

boloboffin said:
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...
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

I never made such a claim.

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.
Click to expand...

I guess it's to be expected that you can't even keep track of who you're talking to, and you're unfamiliar with what sourcing means.

Does it make sense to you that I would prove my own point invalid? That I would disagree with your characterizations of my statements?

Would you bother to consider that you had made a mistake? Guess not.

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.
Click to expand...

No, we would not- because not only is "shadowing" an ambiguous term, but there is no reason to conclude that this footage would definately show that.

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!
Click to expand...

Or that the footage would not show such an event because it was not in a position to see such an event.

You're committing an argument from ignorance, once again.

Basically your footage does not even come close to proving the plane didn't fly over.
Click to expand...

Again, not my footage.

So unless you have something else to offer you are done.

Good day.
Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to dismiss- these errors are yours, and yours alone. My statements were quite clear, yet you attempted to insist I said something I did not.
 
Last edited:
I have a sneaking suspicion that Lyte won't post his evidence here because he's (understandably) afraid that it will be debunked prior to the "movie" coming out. Most of the claims so far have been easily refuted- and are just rehashes of previous claims. Having them debunked would mean all the CGI work for nothing.

This is the difference between a documentary, and the crap that CT's put out: a documentary is an investigative work, it can be wrong- it doesn't need to stall and withhold information in fear.

We've seen the same thing with Loose Change- terrified of repeating past errors in statements, they are unable to grasp that their failure is one of logic- not just of getting specific facts wrong.
 
Tripe Lip how did that barbecue go? what did your witnesses have? ribs? Burgers? Chicken? Was that included in your film budget or did Dylan pay for it? Did they each get dime bags too? hell if the foods good enough ill point to any place in the sky you want me to.


Oh I bet the malt liqueur and beer did flow
 
Last edited:
Lyte, I have another question:

Why the hell would the government do a rudiculously irrational flyover instead of flying the plane into the pentagon? It makes no sense. When answering, bear in mind that the gubmint had already killed 2500+ people in the towers, so it didn't really care about the people at that point.

Even if it did fly the different fly path you outline, what makes you think it flew over, rather than into the building? Your answer to this before was just an unsubstantiated claim. Do you have any evidence?
 
Lyte Trip,
I am going to try to rephrase some of the arguments against you in way that you will hopefully understand.

1. If this evidence is as earth-shattering and definitive as you you claim, it would be morally imperative that you release it immediately. Don't take time to "dress it up." (aka: tampering with it) If it was so definitive, it wouldn't need it anyway.

2. You describe the fly-over like some sort of elaborate magic trick. However, the trick as described is what magicians would call "angle-y," meaning that it will only work from a limited viewing angle. Angle-y tricks are never performed in-the-round where there are people at virtually every viewing angle, such as at the Pentagon. People on the other side of the Pentagon would hear an explosion, look towards the Pentagon, and see a plane flying over it. Where are these people? For your theory to have ANY credibility, you will need to explain the lack of any witnesses on the opposite side of the Pentagon seeing the plane fly over. And claiming that the witnesses were paid off without any direct evidence to that fact will not do.

3. Last, but certainly not least, there have been numerous studies showing the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. You have already indicated that your theory is based primarily, if not solely, on eyewitness testimony that contradicts the physical evidence. In any investigation, physical evidence beats eyewitness testimony. This can not be repeated enough: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE BEATS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY! The exceptions are rare and involve the witnessing of evidence being planted. The point is such a major flaw in your theory, that I would suggest that all posts addressing you should end with this point. I will start.

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE BEATS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY!
 
15 minutes of fame is too much credit. They will not even get a minute of fame for a few witnesses testifying 5 years after the fact on what they might have seen, and where they might have seen it.

Prediction: Pentacon - a mere blip, seen by few, believed by fewer.
Prediction: No grand jury, indictments, or anything in the next 2 years.
Prediction: When the two predictions above prove true, Lyte will not come back and admit it.

TAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom