PentaCon trailer is up

Originally posted by GwionX
I find it amusing..that this whole 9/11 conspiracy take of the pentagon is based completely on conjecture. With wild unfeasible plots unsubstanciated and without any shread of evidence. Many myths that have been proven false..but nothing!

I'm not asking you to analyze anything or coming back at you on the offensive - all I'm asking for is you to state the source of the statistic of the seventy-seven feet number which you stated above. I'm not trying to nit-pick, all I am trying to do is put pieces together.

The post is about the trailer and what JackTripper is claiming.


He claims that the people that saw the plane go into the Pentagon were TRICKED! The plane flew up at the last second and something else hit it. He claims ALL the physical evidence was planted, including the old man that drove the cab.

This is the BS that does NOTHING for anyone looking for the truth. This guy wants the same exposure that Dylan Avery and Alex Jones is getting. All the investigating he does is to fit one thing...HIS agenda.

Originally posted by CameronFox
The post is about the trailer and what JackTripper is claiming.

He claims that the people that saw the plane go into the Pentagon were TRICKED! The plane flew up at the last second and something else hit it. He claims ALL the physical evidence was planted, including the old man that drove the cab.

This is the BS that does NOTHING for anyone looking for the truth. This guy wants the same exposure that Dylan Avery and Alex Jones is getting. All the investigating he does is to fit one thing...HIS agenda.

CIT is the people putting that vid out. Citizen's Investigative Team, in case there's any confusion... Well this is all new to me, but it's fascinating. Looks like Russell Pickering and Dylan A are involved as well? That's interesting... field trip to DC, displaying their abilities to get normally conversant people to avoid interviews and seem "secretive" no doubt.
And to be fair, they found out some valuable info with photos, and it seems well-researched. I Just scanned Jack's earlier thread that documentad all the replaced cameras. www.abovetopsecret.com... And it seems they have something. Somebody is sure acting like they're covering things up. It sure looks suspicious. What these guys seem to be guilty of is not wondering what DIFFERENT reasons might be behind all this. It could only mean a cover up seems to be their take. So essentially, you're right. They "torture the data until the data confesses."

As for suddenly pulling up and flying over, the new argument seems to be that the plane was always high. The NTSB animation ends with the plane wat up in the air and short of the building at 9:37:45. Thus, according to this, anything cutting lamp poles, flying in the CCTV's view, or hitting the building, was something other than Flight 77. Of course this something else then had to be the same size and shape of flight 77 and painted with AA patterns to account for the eyewitnesses who specifically saw THAT plane hit the building. The OTHER plane flew over, the one with the black box that recorded this, all altitude questions worked out by John Doe X at Pilots for 911 truth, almost proving a flyover by this possibly "flawed" gov. animation. but I've pretty well gutted X's argument here.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

As for suddenly pulling up and flying over, the new argument seems to be that the plane was always high. The NTSB animation ends with the plane wat up in the air and short of the building at 9:37:45. Thus, according to this, anything cutting lamp poles, flying in the CCTV's view, or hitting the building, was something other than Flight 77. Of course this something else then had to be the same size and shape of flight 77 and painted with AA patterns to account for the eyewitnesses who specifically saw THAT plane hit the building. The OTHER plane flew over, the one with the black box that recorded this, all altitude questions worked out by John Doe X at Pilots for 911 truth, almost proving a flyover by this possibly "flawed" gov. animation. but I've pretty well gutted X's argument here.

I was going by the map he has where he posted:




You can see that he has the plane "pulling up" pretty close to the Pentagon

Originally posted by Calcas

You post Lytes DIRECT work number on the net? This is his EMPLOYERS number, not his own.

Are you nuts???

You know damn well this is Robert.

S.O.,

Delete this merc cit profile and post immediately.

He is a psychopathic stalker that is doing everything he can to damage me.

Thank you.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]

Robert, who's Robert? Now I'm confused. You're Lyte, right?

Never mind. It seems the posts are gone.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Calcas]

Originally posted by Calcas
Robert, who's Robert? Now I'm confused. You're Lyte, right?

Never mind. It seems the posts are gone.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Calcas]

Stop playing dumb calcas.

You are from Jref and you have posted the name I use at work.

You got this information from Robert.

You are a liar and an admitted thief who publically announced that he plans on STEALING from an upcoming conference we wil be presenting at.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Calcas]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Calcas
Robert, who's Robert? Now I'm confused. You're Lyte, right?

Never mind. It seems the posts are gone.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Calcas]

Stop playing dumb calcas.

You are from Jref and you have posted the name I use at work.

You got this information from Robert.

You are a liar and an admitted thief who publically announced that he plans on STEALING from an upcoming conference we wil be presenting at.

Whatever. I called the number and got a voice mail. That's how I knew the name at work. And if you want to call me a thief because I plan on attending the conference without paying, then so be it. Have you ever "crashed" a party?

I sent you a PM at JREF.

This is not a party it's a conference.

Thief.

Wow. Umm...

well I'm not allowed to just say that even though it sums up my response to whatever that was all about. Sounds pretty uncool.

And as for Cameron: Well I didn't see that. Guess there's a few theories floating around out there. I'm guessing the pull-up is based on the witnesses? Now I'm curious how the witnesses and the FDR, thw tin pillars of this new construct, will correspond with each other.

Sorry about the stalker, guys. I'd thought he was a team member posting contact info like that.
I see the video is now up and expect a new thread or two will appear by this evening. I look forward to watching it when I have enough time, which is soon. I can tell you all put a lot of work into it and I hope to learn more about the cover-up and how all this evidence comes together.

Originally posted by GwionX
I find it amusing..that this whole 9/11 conspiracy take of the pentagon is based completely on conjecture. With wild unfeasible plots unsubstanciated and without any shread of evidence. Many myths that have been proven false..but nothing!

Well not completely on conjecture, as anyone with a basic knowledge of aircraft can tell you. I am still trying to figure out how a plane made mostly of aluminum (the nose made of fragile composites) punched through a reinforced concrete wall and 13 reinforced collums and the interior walls and then was almost completly destroyed by fire (which would have also destroyed the bodies and the DNA evidence). Strange how a plane was strong enough to punch through the rings but then was so fragile as to just burn up with barely anything left.

I am still waiting on the FBI and NTSB reports on the Pentagon crime scene as well as all the other crime scenes. But thier were a lot of mistakes made on the crime scene as we have seen it.

That is also what I find strange Ultima 1.Very stange indeed.

Yes, the unanswered questions. never mind that they've all been answered fairly well. now we have our answer to those questions! A second plane! There's your 757 flying over - and whatever hit the building - well it wasn't a 757, seems to be jack's contribution.
Questions answered: zero. Questions raised: Many
Truth seekers or mystery perpetuators?
That said, I still haven't seen it. Anyone else?

Hey CL... I read your post on your blog and get what you're saying about the altitude. But what about the path that doesn't take out the light poles? Is that path real or what?

I'm holding off on that. It doesn't sound right but it can't really be ruled out. there might've been two planes. I'll have to watch the video soon. There's a lot to explain here. My best guess is something's fundamentally wrong with the animation and it'll all be explained soon enough. But I just don't know. For the moment they got me stumped.

I watched it. I think they have come up with a brilliant idea. That the plane flew over the Pentagon and was timed with an explosion.

Now, proving that is entirely different. It is hard just based on eyewitness's to *prove* anything when you have other's saying the exact opposite.

But the film does offer some testimony that goes together and finds support. So I think that you guys are on to something.

The only thing I am concerned about is, the Pentagon is a *trap* in many ways and we have to be extra careful.

But again, the fly over is a brilliant idea.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by talisman]