It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The PentaCon a HOAX?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
1. The animation was created by the NTSB.

2. CIT supports the work of PFT and vice versa but that is where it ends. We study completely different lines of evidence and we study them independently. CIT has not done an FDR study and PFT has not done an eyewitness study. We see both lines of inquiry about the Pentagon attack as important to the investigation so we believe it's helpful for us to support each other and make sure attention is focused on both. Is that bad?

3. We have never claimed that the eyewitnesses confirm the FDR and PFT has never claimed that the FDR is proof of anything other than the fact that it is anomalous in comparison to the official story. Yes the animation happened to show the plane north of the citgo but no the animation/FDR does not perfectly match the eyewitness flight path that we report.

4. We did not set out to prove the north side claim because of the FDR. We set out to establish the flight path as told by the eyewitnesses and the eyewitnesses ended up proving the plane could not have hit the light poles or damage the building as outlined in the ASCE report. This has nothing to do with the FDR or the NTSB animation.


Nothing in this thread or in Caustic Logic's deceptive hit piece about our movie comes close to demonstrating how Edward Paik, Robert Turcios, Chadwick Brooks, and William Lagasse could all be simultaneously and independently incorrect about such a simple right or left claim of this magnitude.

Nothing whatsoever has been brought forth that could for a single second demonstrate that The PentaCon is a "hoax".

This is yet another baseless attack on our extremely important investigation that PROVES 9/11 was a lie.

Shame on you nick7261.




posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Please make sure and read my response to Caustic Logic's deceptive review.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Caustic Logic made a sad attempt to neutralize our info by casting doubt on us personally.

It's pathetic and obvious. And he's a bad writer too.

It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!

You can't "debunk" The PentaCon because everything is based on the independently corroborated first hand testimony that we filmed on location. Not theories we heard online.

The north side claim is so solid that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only way counter it is to type a bunch of irrelevant rhetoric about us that ignores the evidence or diverts attention from it.

It's done people.

We have proven 9/11 was an inside job.

Stop spinning in circles with idiocy like this thread and demand that this info is plastered on front page of every newspaper and website in America.

The plane could not have caused the damage. Nobody contradicts the citgo witnesses and they will testify in a Grand Jury.

Lloyd England has been proven to be the first known accomplice (willing or not) to the crime.

This is huge.

We can DO something about this!


[edit on 4-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

You can't "debunk" The PentaCon because everything is based on the independently corroborated first hand testimony that we filmed on location. Not theories we heard online.

The north side claim is so solid that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.



Well, if I interviewed four people who saw the plane hit the building, and four people who saw the plane fly on the south side, would that prove your video is false beyond a reasonable doubt?

It is not as solid as you claim or people would be listening to you. The fact is that you have four, out of the hundreds who witnessed the crash, who agree with your theory and you found them. You choose to ignore any testimony that isn't yours as plants or shills.

The physical damage to the poles and to the pentagon do not line up with your witnesses, so we get two choices of what to believe.

a) Only the four people who happen to line up with your theories are right about what they saw, and that the government somehow blew up some lightpoles, and then paid people to say that they saw the plane hit the lightpoles and then they planted scraps from the a plane on the freeway and planted bodies and plane parts at the pentagon.

b) That the overwhelming majority of the evidence, physical and eyewitness points to the official flight path, and the people you interviewed are either mistaken, confused, remembering wrong because of leading questions, and or lying.

I know which one is plausible and realistic.

You case is not even proven beyond just a few reasonable doubts, let alone any reasonable doubt.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
1. There is not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence who directly contradicts the north side claim.

2. It makes perfect sense that people would be fooled by a military psychological sleight of hand illusion of this magnitude after both towers had already been hit in Manhattan.




posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Although there are no witnesses that direcly contradcit the north side claim there is a very small handful of eyewitnesses who indirectly contradict the north side claim.

The strongest of whom are Lloyd England and Frank Probst.

I'll let you guys figure out the other 2 or 3 on your own but that's about it.

Every single other previously published account could support either flight path.

So seriously......


Do you believe Lloyd or the Citgo witnesses?

That's what it boils down to.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
If you are unfamiliar or hazy on the details about Lloyd I recommend you refresh yourself because this is one of the most important pieces of evidence in regards to the attack on the Pentagon there is. Probably the most important.

Lloyd is special because he was at the beginning of the physical damage. He is where the eyewitness testimony meets the physical evidence in this investigation.

Because of this our research into Lloyd has been extremely detailed and thorough.

Ultimately the conclusion from interviewing him was that Lloyd England's account of what happened is in the very least implausible and now that we have the testimony from the citgo witnesses we know exactly why.

Watch an interview with Lloyd conducted by LTW, CIT, and Russell Pickering outside of his house in front of his new cab here:

Lloyd interview

Here is an audio file of our pre-interview with Lloyd in his living room:

Listen to pre-interview here

One of the main purposes of our interview was to definitively establish what part of the pole Lloyd claims speared his windshield. We showed Lloyd multiple pictures of the scene and in all of them he claimed it was the 30 foot long main part of the pole shown here:



Prior to this; the debate was whether or not he claimed it was the small piece of the pole indicated here:



So now that Lloyd has cleared this up even Russell Pickering has admitted that his account is impossible. Russell wrote it off to bad memory while CIT believed it to be an extremely important clue into solving this world wide psychological crime of deception.

We know it's impossible because Lloyd claims that he stopped his car sideways on the road with the pole sticking out of his windshield over his hood. He illustrated that for us here:


But the pole was much longer than that as you can see in the images above.

We had a tour of the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) and physically examined the same style light poles.

Here are the dimensions:


And here is a video of me doing a squat lift to pick up the heavier base end of the pole which is what Lloyd claimed was sticking out over the hood of his car:

Light pole physical examination video


Lloyd's story makes no sense because of the weight and length of the pole and the fact that the hood of his car doesn't even have a single scratch on it:






So we had established the physical impossibility of Lloyd's account BEFORE we obtained the testimony of the citgo station witnesses. If the plane was anywhere near where ALL the witnesses at the citgo station place it we know it is impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles but PARTICULARLY pole one which is the one that allegedly speared Lloyd's windshield.



So everyone is FORCED to make a decision of who to believe.

The quadruple corroborated testimony of the witnesses in The PentaCon........or Lloyd and his extremely dubious and beyond implausible account.

Their accounts can not simultaneously be true.

Does it make sense to write off all their accounts as bad memory and therefore insignificant?

This information is CRITICAL to proving 9/11 was an inside job.

It is irresponsible for any 9/11 truth researcher to wave this information off as inconsequential.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Caustic Logic

I seriously commend you for taking on this challenge, but one thing to note if the problem is truly with the NTSB then that is pretty well bona-fide proof they been screwing with things.

You took a huge leap, but it may pay off in a big way.


Thanks Tal. I'm committed to figure this out despite my biases. If the NTSB is screwing with data, that proves what it does. We'll see.

And then finally JT is here and we're back to the PentaCon instead of the animation, which we should maybe start discussing over on my thread instead of here.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Jack, jack, jack...
Sorry about missing your challenge at JREF. That place is so boring I've hardly been back there. But as I state in this thread, I stand where I stand, tho I'm not getting into it at this time. It's late and I got stuck with extra work tonight so I'm tired. But since this thread is about your video, or supposed to be, I guess its good to get your side again with the Lloyd-bashing and whatnot. Some real gems back there I'm sure.


It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!

Now you know your fans can't read contect. "Like a cruise missile with wings" becomes cruise missile, so what is this supposed to translate to?
Please read this thread that explains how no one who claims to be a 9/11 Truther as I do can possibly be a disinfo agent, so I am immune. But so are you. So I guess we must both be right somehow...

Or I guess since COINTELPRO is more formal the rule doesn't apply... I am into the serious pro-government neocon disinfo game for sure, handpicked by Cheney himself. Who else could have such VENOM against these guys and their dilligent search for the most damning truth yet etc....

Point-by-point analysis - not now.
I'm busy with other things, and not up to challenging your unchallengable witnesses. You know roughy where I stand. Thank you for the additional insults, I will take them to heart and try to do my shady work more seriously from here on and write better. I admit my review of the PentaCon was not my best, but I felt I had to freeze it there since such a deal had been made of it. Apparently it's good enough to have hit a nerve...

Anyway have a whatever whatever



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Oh and I didn't mention yet, another great critical review of the PentaCon, better written than mine, more detailed, and pretty damning. I'll let this one speak for me for now.
Arabesque's review


[citing Lagasse] “I’ve never seen anything that said it was on the south side of that gas station. Ever [looks upwards in bewilderment]. These were the light poles. This is where the taxi cab was [pointing to the same incorrect location]. Nothing [emphasizing] happened over here. I can’t be any clearer about it.”

100% false! We know that Lagasse is definitely wrong about the location of the light pole damage and taxi cab. We know that he thought the plane flew in the location where he believed these objects were. The PentaCon ignores the possibility that he saw the plane where the light poles and taxi cab were actually located.

Unfortunately, they did not interview Brooks about this same question, so we do not know how he would respond to this information. Stunningly, the filmmakers do not acknowledge that Lagasse is wrong leaving the viewer in a state of bewilderment: ‘What is Lagasse talking about? Is he right the location about the taxi cab and light poles?’ The filmmakers amazingly ignore this question as if it were an insignificant detail. At the very least it shows that Lagasse’s testimony about the flight path is in doubt.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by nick7261
How do you "reverse engineer" the data? Seriously, being an engineer, I would love to understand the methodology in "reverse engineering" raw data files from the FDR. Sounds more like another way of telling the math/statistics expert what you wanted the findings to show, and then having him come up with a way to show these findings.


From what I've seen, his findings were roughly ours. So maybe reverse engineering is what we've done. You look at the data anf figure out what was happening to make that data be recorded.


I read the "reverse engineering" work done by the mathematician. You can read it yourself. I'm guessing a large majority of people on ATS and other CT sites don't have the math or engineering background to comment on this work.

I do.

I will save my debunking of this for another thread and another day, but I promise you it will be debunked. I'm guessing that Rob doesn't understand the "reverse engineering" or he wouldn't have called it that.

Basically, the entire premise of the "reverse engineering" is flawed, and still doesn't accout for the visual flight path on the animation north of the Citgo not matching up with the magnetic heading of 70 degrees shown in the animation.

This fits with the basic pattern I've noticed with P49T. They make claims and back them with supposedly technical talk that the average person can't understand. And if challenged, rather than argue the point they argue that their credentialed so they must be right.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Shame on you nick7261.



If my memory serves me correctly, you were using the Pandora's Black Box video with the "NTSB" animation to promote the release of the PentaCon. Also, as I remember it, the promotion of the release of the PentaCon seemed to imply that the witnesses who were interviewed confirmed the PBB animation findings.

Combine this with the "brother organization" comment on the PentaCon video, and you can see why it's easy to think there's a closer relationship, maybe even joint planning and marketing, between your group and P49T.

Like my grandmother always told me, people are going to judge you by the company you keep. I apologize if I misjudged you.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Jack, jack, jack...
Sorry about missing your challenge at JREF. That place is so boring I've hardly been back there. But as I state in this thread, I stand where I stand, tho I'm not getting into it at this time. It's late and I got stuck with extra work tonight so I'm tired. But since this thread is about your video, or supposed to be, I guess its good to get your side again with the Lloyd-bashing and whatnot. Some real gems back there I'm sure.


It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!

Now you know your fans can't read contect. "Like a cruise missile with wings" becomes cruise missile, so what is this supposed to translate to?
Please read this thread that explains how no one who claims to be a 9/11 Truther as I do can possibly be a disinfo agent, so I am immune. But so are you. So I guess we must both be right somehow...

Or I guess since COINTELPRO is more formal the rule doesn't apply... I am into the serious pro-government neocon disinfo game for sure, handpicked by Cheney himself. Who else could have such VENOM against these guys and their dilligent search for the most damning truth yet etc....

Point-by-point analysis - not now.
I'm busy with other things, and not up to challenging your unchallengable witnesses. You know roughy where I stand. Thank you for the additional insults, I will take them to heart and try to do my shady work more seriously from here on and write better. I admit my review of the PentaCon was not my best, but I felt I had to freeze it there since such a deal had been made of it. Apparently it's good enough to have hit a nerve...

Anyway have a whatever whatever


I didn't say you were cointelpro. I said you are a cointelpro FLUNKIE. A wannabe. That's much worse. But you fail so miserably that you expose yourself.

Just look at this lame response! It's so typical. You dance, you play smart, you misdirect, you ignore the points, you achieve NOTHING but a smoke screen to cloud the truth.

Lloyd bashing???? Make a specific point for once or stop your baseless attacks.

Every single thing I say about Lloyd and his ludicrous account is based on FACTS that we found as a result of HARD on site investigative journalism.

You know.......RESEARCH.

Oh I guess you don't know. You prefer to sit back and gather information about people who question the official pentagon story instead.

Disgusting.

Bottom line you have FLOUNDERED in every discussion we have had and ended up running screaming from the facts.

You have admitted that your "review" of our documentary is a badly written deceptive hit-piece yet you leave it up because it gets a "reaction".

Truly sickening.










[edit on 5-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Shame on you nick7261.



If my memory serves me correctly, you were using the Pandora's Black Box video with the "NTSB" animation to promote the release of the PentaCon. Also, as I remember it, the promotion of the release of the PentaCon seemed to imply that the witnesses who were interviewed confirmed the PBB animation findings.


Your memory fails you miserably. We did no such thing. You are dreaming things up because you are nothing but a conspiracy theorist who prefers to make up conspiracies against true researchers and investigators instead of the government.

We have NEVER claimed or "implied" anything of the sort. Quite the contrary. We have been quite clear that the FDR does NOT match the witness flight path.

The claim that we have made is that both the witnesses AND the FDR contradict the physical damage. This is fact. I don't care how much you want to quibble about the true heading the ALTITUDE on the FDR is anomalous. Period. This however has no bearing on the witnesses definitive placement of the plane on the north side of the citgo station. You have not provided a single shred of information to back up your disgusting "PentaCon Hoax" claim. I expect a full retraction.



Combine this with the "brother organization" comment on the PentaCon video, and you can see why it's easy to think there's a closer relationship, maybe even joint planning and marketing, between your group and P49T.

Like my grandmother always told me, people are going to judge you by the company you keep. I apologize if I misjudged you.


You are making up information about the FACTS based on the simple and completely innocent notion that we refer to each other as "brother organizations".

WE SUPPORT EACH OTHER'S RESEARCH. That is the extent of our "marketing". We put a link to each others site. So what?

There is nothing wrong with that. We defer people to them about the FDR and they defer people to us about the eyewitnesses.

Both are important lines of inquiry that deserve attention.

As long as your apology is sincere it is accepted.

Let it be known that nick7261 has apologized and that the title of this thread has been shown to be based on NOTHING.

A full retraction is in order.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I watched that Pentacon Movie.....

Name is PERFECT.... we were CONNED to watch it. What a pack of filth! This Jack guy states that all the witnesses agree of what side of the Citgo station they see the plane. ALL of these witnesses ALSO claimed to have seen the plane slam into the pentagon. So, we are to take what they say about the location of the plane as Gospel yet dismiss what they say about the plane hitting the Pentagon. Sorry, this guy's movie was a joke. I also went to that site that Caustic was talking about and found this:


Lyte Trip
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,372
My Profile Gee good job.

Too bad there is still a device on the bottom of 175 that should not be there


It appears that Jack Tripper is one of those Pod People!~

Looks like we have another Dis Info agent here folks!



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 5-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Your memory fails you miserably. We did no such thing.


I'm betting you used the NTSB animation to stir up buzz about the release of the PentaCon movie. I don't have time to go back and check all of your posts today, but I'm pretty sure it was from your posts that I first learned about the NTSB video. I remember vividly because of your name, Jack Tripper, whose character was played by John Ritter on 3's Company. I noticed that the guy from the NTSB who phone conversation was recorded was also Ritter (Jim maybe?). I thought to myself, "How clever... this dude made up his login name from the guy from the NTSB."


You are dreaming things up because you are nothing but a conspiracy theorist who prefers to make up conspiracies against true researchers and investigators instead of the government.


Whatever...

By the way, I would hardly call what you've done as "true" research. If it was "true" research you would have also interviewed people who may have contradicted your pet theory. Oh that's right, I forgot. None exist. Sorry.


We have NEVER claimed or "implied" anything of the sort. Quite the contrary. We have been quite clear that the FDR does NOT match the witness flight path.


Like I said, I'll go back and check the threads. Maybe I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that you used the PBB video and the NTSB video as your launchpad.



The claim that we have made is that both the witnesses AND the FDR contradict the physical damage. This is fact.


Setting aside the witnesses for the time being, what FDR data are you referring to? The FDR data that P49T claims came from the NTSB?

Also, one of your witnesses claims that it was a United Airlines plane that flew over, and another claims he didn't her a 757 that was 100 feet away because of the "doppler" effect. Do you really think these witnesses are infallible?


I don't care how much you want to quibble about the true heading the ALTITUDE on the FDR is anomalous. Period.


The only FDR data that can be verified as coming from the NTSB is what's on their website, and this FDR data is not "anomalous."


You have not provided a single shred of information to back up your disgusting "PentaCon Hoax" claim. I expect a full retraction.


As I pointed out, I didn't claim the PentaCon was a Hoax. I merely questioned whether it was a hoax or not, based on the links you have with the NTSB video, and what I thought were posts specifically by you citing the "NTSB" video to promote the PentaCon.





You are making up information about the FACTS based on the simple and completely innocent notion that we refer to each other as "brother organizations".

WE SUPPORT EACH OTHER'S RESEARCH. That is the extent of our "marketing". We put a link to each others site. So what?

There is nothing wrong with that. We defer people to them about the FDR and they defer people to us about the eyewitnesses.


I don't really care what you do. But you need to realize and understand that you give the appearance of being tightly connected with P49T. If P49T looks bad, your connection to them is going to make you look bad as well.



As long as your apology is sincere it is accepted.


Yes, my apology was, and is, sincere. I may have misjudged you, your recents rantings aside.



Let it be known that nick7261 has apologized and that the title of this thread has been shown to be based on NOTHING.

A full retraction is in order.


The question I raised about the PentaCon were related to the close relationship you have with P49T. You seem to either be supporting the P49T position on the questions I raised, or ignoring them altogher.

So what's your position regarding the P49T? Do you blindly follow whatever they tell you is true because it helps support and promote your video about the north-of-the-Citgo witnesses? Do you even look at what P49T says about anything with a critical eye or do you just take them at their word?



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I watched that Pentacon Movie.....

Name is PERFECT.... we were CONNED to watch it. What a pack of filth! This Jack guy states that all the witnesses agree of what side of the Citgo station they see the plane. ALL of these witnesses ALSO claimed to have seen the plane slam into the pentagon. So, we are to take what they say about the location of the plane as Gospel yet dismiss what they say about the plane hitting the Pentagon. Sorry, this guy's movie was a joke.


You have demonstrated you do not have the mental capacity to understand the point or think logically and critically.

Nothing is "dismissed" other than the facts by you.

It is impossible for the witnesses to be simultaneously correct in their placement of the plane and in their belief that the plane hit the building.

If they are correct in their placement of the plane it is proof the plane did not cause the physical damage regardless of the fact that they were fooled.

The notion that they were all independently simultaneously drastically incorrect about the placement of the plane in the same way is not realistic or logical.

If the plane did not cause the physical damage we have proven that 9/11 was a world wide psychological operation of DECEPTION. That means it was designed to DECEIVE people into believing the official story. Millions of people were DECEIVED into believing the planes caused the towers to collapse. While hundreds of people in the Arlington area were DECEIVED into believing the plane they saw hit the building. But it COULD NOT have since it flew on the north of the citgo. The fact that the citgo witnesses were fooled by the military sleight of hand illusion has nothing to do with what side of the station they all saw the plane. There are 100's if not 1,000's of dubious and suspicious details regarding 9/11. This detail happens to be so thoroughly documented and corroborated that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not cause the physical damage.

If you think that is a "joke" then you have serious issues.







I also went to that site that Caustic was talking about and found this:


Lyte Trip
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,372
My Profile Gee good job.

Too bad there is still a device on the bottom of 175 that should not be there


It appears that Jack Tripper is one of those Pod People!~

Looks like we have another Dis Info agent here folks!




Why don't you quote mine completely irrelevant comments and misdirect some more? Talk about slimy.

Show me where I have ever touted the pod as "proof" of anything. Sure there is an anomaly in the image and yes there is a clear flash that I question at both towers. Do I find it valid to ask questions about it? Sure! Do I tout it as proof or every really discuss it in detail at all? Nope.

I could care less if you try to demonize/classify me for that with your stupid little labels.

You are reaching HARD.



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

I'm betting you used the NTSB animation to stir up buzz about the release of the PentaCon movie. I don't have time to go back and check all of your posts today, but I'm pretty sure it was from your posts that I first learned about the NTSB video. I remember vividly because of your name, Jack Tripper, whose character was played by John Ritter on 3's Company. I noticed that the guy from the NTSB who phone conversation was recorded was also Ritter (Jim maybe?). I thought to myself, "How clever... this dude made up his login name from the guy from the NTSB."


YOUR ARE WRONG. Stop accusing me of stuff that your tiny little conspiracy theorist mind makes up. Prove it or retract it.

We NEVER "used" the NTSB animation to "stir up buzz". Have I mentioned it before? Of course! Did I EVER directly connect it as proof that the citgo witnesses are correct? Nope. Never. The plane didn't hit the building. There is zero evidence that Flight 77 was EVER anywhere near the area at all except maybe when it took off from Dulles. I have never thought the FDR was legitimate therefore I never touted it as supporting the witnesses in any way.

And my Jack Tripper name is not "Ritter" and I had that name here LONG before PFT ever existed or the NTSB released this data. You look like a paranoid conspiracy nutcase with these idiotic unsubstantiated claims that are provably incorrect.






By the way, I would hardly call what you've done as "true" research. If it was "true" research you would have also interviewed people who may have contradicted your pet theory. Oh that's right, I forgot. None exist. Sorry.


What have you done? Did you go there? Did you ever interview ANYONE?

We have made efforts to call virtually every previously published witness that exists. We canvassed the neighborhoods on foot to find UNpublished witnesses! NOBODY in the movement or mainstream media has EVER interviewed eyewitnesses to the plane on location. We found every known citgo witness there is and also an unknown one and they ALL CORROBORATE each other. You're damn right we looked for witnesses to contradict them and the only one we could find was Lloyd! How dare you minimize our efforts when you have done NOTHING.

The Researcher's Edition will have many more exclusive witness interviews INCLUDING Lloyd, Stephen McGraw, and Joel Sucherman. We have a TON more information that will be presented. The Researcher's Edition will be the most comprehensive Pentagon study EVER. We just didn't want the north side claim to get buried in a 4 hour long film so we released Smoking Gun first.




Like I said, I'll go back and check the threads. Maybe I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that you used the PBB video and the NTSB video as your launchpad.


YOU are the one making the unsubstantiated FALSE claim! So prove it or retract it or let it be known you are a liar.




Setting aside the witnesses for the time being, what FDR data are you referring to? The FDR data that P49T claims came from the NTSB?

Also, one of your witnesses claims that it was a United Airlines plane that flew over, and another claims he didn't her a 757 that was 100 feet away because of the "doppler" effect. Do you really think these witnesses are infallible?


Of course I am referring to the data that came from the NTSB.

We have NEVER claimed that the witnesses are "infallible"! What's the best way to determine what parts of witness accounts are accurate? When they are CORROBORATED without being refuted. The "United" claim is not corroborated. The "doppler effect" claim is irrelevant. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that the witnesses have to be perfectly correct about EVERY detail in order for the north side claim to be correct.

The north side claim is 100% corroborated and not directly refuted by a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.




The only FDR data that can be verified as coming from the NTSB is what's on their website, and this FDR data is not "anomalous."


Yes it is. The altitude is too high.



As I pointed out, I didn't claim the PentaCon was a Hoax. I merely questioned whether it was a hoax or not, based on the links you have with the NTSB video, and what I thought were posts specifically by you citing the "NTSB" video to promote the PentaCon.


You were wrong about the "promotion" and you are wrong about the animation. It most certainly WAS provided by the NTSB. You are tripping out on a fabricated conspiracy theory. It looks ridiculous.

For the sake of sanity, logic, truth, and research......STOP MAKING IDIOTIC UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS!




I don't really care what you do. But you need to realize and understand that you give the appearance of being tightly connected with P49T. If P49T looks bad, your connection to them is going to make you look bad as well.


Looks bad? Because you erroneously and absurdly accuse them of creating the NTSB animation??? Give me a break!



The question I raised about the PentaCon were related to the close relationship you have with P49T. You seem to either be supporting the P49T position on the questions I raised, or ignoring them altogher.

So what's your position regarding the P49T? Do you blindly follow whatever they tell you is true because it helps support and promote your video about the north-of-the-Citgo witnesses? Do you even look at what P49T says about anything with a critical eye or do you just take them at their word?


This is not a reason to suggest that our research is a "hoax"!

We support their research. We are not qualified nor do we have the time to do an in depth analysis of the FDR. We trust P4T and defer questions about the FDR to them. Of COURSE we look at their work but we are not responsible for every claim that they make.

At the current moment I am not aware of anything they claim that we do not support.

We do not or have not used the NTSB data to support our research. Ever!

The animation was provided for by the NTSB.

Your ridiculous conspiracy theory has no merit.

If you are really sorry you will make a public retraction for your claims that our movie is a "hoax".


[edit on 5-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I watched that Pentacon Movie.....

Name is PERFECT.... we were CONNED to watch it. What a pack of filth! This Jack guy states that all the witnesses agree of what side of the Citgo station they see the plane. ALL of these witnesses ALSO claimed to have seen the plane slam into the pentagon. So, we are to take what they say about the location of the plane as Gospel yet dismiss what they say about the plane hitting the Pentagon. Sorry, this guy's movie was a joke. I also went to that site that Caustic was talking about and found this:


Lyte Trip
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,372
My Profile Gee good job.

Too bad there is still a device on the bottom of 175 that should not be there


It appears that Jack Tripper is one of those Pod People!~

Looks like we have another Dis Info agent here folks!


Thank you sir. I am always disheartened and sometimes angered reading JT's posts. But emotional manipulation aside, the fact remains his contruct is based on a few eyewitnesses and implies a physical story that is so stupid it's not even worth debunking. The physical evidence is the crime, Jack, and everything about it lines up with a Boeing 757 on a mag bearing of 70 degrees. You grossly misrepresent the overall body of eyewitness accounts, who by their placement and accounts seem to put it south of the Citgo and then inside the Pentagon.



Note: This is only partial - I was looking at odd cases first and had yet to fill in the more famous accounts placing it south - note Lloyd England and Frank Probst aren't on there yet.
ETA: Also, the line placement is a bit arbitrary relly so please don't read this too literally and say Don Scott now agrees w/CIT. Read the actuall accounts first - you got a few names now.

The reason I flounder in my attacks on you is because - you trip me up somehow. I don't know how I let you get to me. In fact I'm done here again. I'll let others challenge you point by point if they like. Go ahead and call me a coward because I'm working on something else right now that requires my focus. Your rants are like the chitterings of a squirrel outside my window.

[edit on 5-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jun, 5 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I trip you up because you post nothing but deceptive CRAP with zero substance and loads of irrelevant rhetoric to confuse people.

And I expose you.

Like what the HELL is that stupid image supposed to represent??

So you think it's perfectly ok to infer your own definitive flight path based off unconfirmed ambiguous accounts?

That is supposed to debunk the citgo witnesses?

Spare me!

Show HOW any of those flight paths are supported by the witnesses.

Show HOW you have made a single iota of effort to confirm the witness accounts.

Merely using the "crayon" tool to make these big fat confusing, unsupported, unsubstantiated lines is NOT research.

It is the sad horrible work of a cointelpro wannabe flunkie crying out for attention.

I thought Arabasque was bad with this shoddy copy and paste compilations/classifications of mainstream media published witness accounts that he hasn't even bothered to remotely analyze. (he includes people like pentagon renovation manager Lee Evey who wasn't even an eyewitness at all!)

But you take the cake. Arabasque is clearly not the brightest crayon in the box but even his lame work makes you look like a pre-schooler.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join