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: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

But guys who put out crap like that ARE enemies. They are enemies of truth and justice and fiends for attention.



Craig,

Let me make a suggestion. Instead of thinking of the people here who piss you off as enemies, maybe you should think of them as sparring partners. If you have any hope of putting a dent into the 9/11 conspiracy anywhere outside of the 9/11 CTers, you're going to need to do two things:

1) be able to communicate your points effectively without losing your emotional state and coming across as immature, emotional, etc., sort of like a guy Rosie O'Donnell (not that a guy Rosie O'Donnell would be much different than the girl Rosie O'Donnell, but you get what I'm saying)

2) be prepared to rationally, intelligently, and calmly defend your claims against every sort of attack, whether the attacks are legitimate, stupid, deceptive, etc.

Uncovering the information and being able to communicate it effectively so that non-believers change their beliefs is what's going to be required. If you're going to make any kind of a dent, you're going to have to take your game to the next level.




posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Craig,

Let me make a suggestion. Instead of thinking of the people here who piss you off as enemies, maybe you should think of them as sparring partners.


Uh-huh.

Once again I will agree with what you said but defend my posts.

These 2 are not merely "people here who piss me off".

They are the only 2 individuals who felt compelled enough to create and publish complex deceptive hit-pieces against us.

That trash gets regurgitated and makes our job all that much more difficult. With people like them around it becomes one step forward two steps backward.

I went back and read my posts again and they aren't the least bit overboard compared to what they have both done.

Granted I came off strong on you in this thread but come on!

Hoax?

I know I've got truth on my side so I can hold my own against any and all ill-informed and/or deliberately nefarious attacks.

If they are merely ill-informed honest people like you they will see truth and come around.

If they are deliberately nefarious they will be exposed.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
The problem here is that Jack's entire research is based pretty much completely on some eyewitness testimony. This is the absolutely weakest type of evidence in science. And in addition he is using the weakest form of evidence as his proof that the more credible evidence is wrong.

Does anyone else not have the problem with the lack of scientific method?


Now jack can come on here and act like a tough guy, but he's just a harmless little person who thinks he can intimidate his way into winning a discussion. But there is no arguing that the scientific method in the research is completely faulty. And sorry, but I don't get intimidated by people who need put on a false tough guy image to make up for research.

In other words, you need to chill out and show some people some respect, or you won't get any in return. If one were to remove all the petty insults and worthless content in this thread there wouldn't be much left.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
The problem here is that Jack's entire research is based pretty much completely on some eyewitness testimony. This is the absolutely weakest type of evidence in science. And in addition he is using the weakest form of evidence as his proof that the more credible evidence is wrong.

Does anyone else not have the problem with the lack of scientific method?


Now jack can come on here and act like a tough guy, but he's just a harmless little person who thinks he can intimidate his way into winning a discussion. But there is no arguing that the scientific method in the research is completely faulty. And sorry, but I don't get intimidated by people who need put on a false tough guy image to make up for research.

In other words, you need to chill out and show some people some respect, or you won't get any in return. If one were to remove all the petty insults and worthless content in this thread there wouldn't be much left.



Have you published a complex hit-piece against us?

Ok then you can relax.


The "eyewitness testimony is weak evidence" claim is a cop out.

1. When considering an investigation into an incredible crime of this nature you have to understand that virtually ALL evidence is either vetted, sequestered, manipulated, or certainly controlled in one way or another by the perps.

Eyewitness testimony is virtually the ONLY chance we have to get to pure data.

2. The testimony we present is extremely strong and highly corroborated. Not to mention the claim is extremely simple. It would be virtually impossible for any of them to make such a drastic mistake about such a simple claim let alone to have ALL of them make the SAME drastic mistake!

It's just not logical and it would be a statistical miracle.

If they were all mistaken their accounts would vary.





[edit on 7-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Have you published a complex hit-piece against us?

Ok then you can relax.


The "eyewitness testimony is weak evidence" claim is a cop out.

1. When considering an investigation into an incredible crime of this nature you have to understand that virtually ALL evidence is either vetted, sequestered, manipulated, or certainly controlled in one way or another by the perps.

Eyewitness testimony is virtually the ONLY chance we have to get to pure data.

2. The testimony we present is extremely strong and highly corroborated. Not to mention the claim is extremely simple. It would be virtually impossible for any of them to make such a drastic mistake about such a simple claim let alone to have ALL of the make the SAME drastic mistake!

It's just not logical and it would be a statistical miracle.

If they were all mistaken their accounts would vary.




So you are going to sit here and say that eyewitness testimony is not the weakest scientific evidence? And that it's a cop out to say otherwise? Really? Because I think there's a world o scientists that would disagree with you.

I agree you have to look at all evidence. And this is where I have a problem with your research. You are using a small piece o evidence, which scientifically is the weakest, and using it to dismiss all other evidence. For the most part at least as everything else is based on that. I you were using all evidence then I would agree with you.

Again, eyewitness testimony is not the only chance to get pure data. It's scientifically the least reliable evidence. And the reason you think it's the only way top get pure data is because you are starting with the pre-determined conclusion that there is an inside job. This taints the research, just like relying on eyewtness testimony does.

And it's not virtually impossible for them to make a mistake. In fact it's almost impossible for them not to. This is why scientists try not to rely on eyewitness testimony. Most often people don't remember things the way they actually happened. Especially in a situation as dramatic as that.

Hell I just got attacked by a dog last night which while funny now was pretty traumatic at the moment. I remember kicking the dogs ass after it jumped me, but I can't remember clearly whether I kicked him in the face first or the stomach. I was there in NY on 9/11 and I remembered many things only to realize later I remembered them wrong. This goes for most people. We think we remember exactly how things happened but they weren't nesc that way. I remember as a kid crossing the street with a friend and he was on his bike and got hit by a car. to this day I remember him being in the right side of the road when being hit. But the skid marks the damage and everything else about the accident showed he was on the other side of the street. yet in my mind when I see it I see him on the right side. The mind does weird things. These are just my personal examples, but it's the same for everyone.

Those guy could be remembering things exactly as they happened. But you can't be sure of that and you certainly can't use that as proof that everything else is wrong. Especially not the physical evidence. And that's not to say the research is invalid. It's great and it's duly noted and should be taken into account. It just doesn't dismiss or prove anythign else wrong. it's simply one piece to be factored in.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

So you are going to sit here and say that eyewitness testimony is not the weakest scientific evidence? And that it's a cop out to say otherwise? Really? Because I think there's a world o scientists that would disagree with you.

I agree you have to look at all evidence. And this is where I have a problem with your research. You are using a small piece o evidence, which scientifically is the weakest, and using it to dismiss all other evidence. For the most part at least as everything else is based on that. I you were using all evidence then I would agree with you.


The nature of this operation was deception via planes as psychological tools while staging covert simulation of physical destruction with pre-planted explosives. If you can't accept that basic premise as what happened in New York then I don't expect you to understand the Pentagon.




Again, eyewitness testimony is not the only chance to get pure data. It's scientifically the least reliable evidence. And the reason you think it's the only way top get pure data is because you are starting with the pre-determined conclusion that there is an inside job. This taints the research, just like relying on eyewtness testimony does.


Yes we KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job. There is plenty enough evidence for controlled demolition so that proves it. If you don't believe that then you are not within the appropriate discussion realm of this particular thread in this particular conspiracy forum.




And it's not virtually impossible for them to make a mistake. In fact it's almost impossible for them not to. This is why scientists try not to rely on eyewitness testimony. Most often people don't remember things the way they actually happened. Especially in a situation as dramatic as that.


They made PLENTY of mistakes! Of course I expect that from eyewitnesses. I am talking specifically and solely about the claim of which side of the station the plane flew. This would be a particularly impossible mistake for Lagasse who wouldn't have been able to see the plane through the citgo station building. The notion that they would ALL make the SAME drastic mistake about such a simple claim is not feasible.



Hell I just got attacked by a dog last night which while funny now was pretty traumatic at the moment. I remember kicking the dogs ass after it jumped me, but I can't remember clearly whether I kicked him in the face first or the stomach. I was there in NY on 9/11 and I remembered many things only to realize later I remembered them wrong. This goes for most people. We think we remember exactly how things happened but they weren't nesc that way. I remember as a kid crossing the street with a friend and he was on his bike and got hit by a car. to this day I remember him being in the right side of the road when being hit. But the skid marks the damage and everything else about the accident showed he was on the other side of the street. yet in my mind when I see it I see him on the right side. The mind does weird things. These are just my personal examples, but it's the same for everyone.


Uh-huh. But when 4 people independently remember the SAME thing and it happens to be a claim as significant and simple as what side of the station/street the plane flew.........it's an entirely different story and your analogies are pointless.

I KNOW that eyewitness get stuff wrong a lot. It's when specific details are CORROBORATED that we know they are correct.




Those guy could be remembering things exactly as they happened. But you can't be sure of that and you certainly can't use that as proof that everything else is wrong. Especially not the physical evidence. And that's not to say the research is invalid. It's great and it's duly noted and should be taken into account. It just doesn't dismiss or prove anythign else wrong. it's simply one piece to be factored in.



It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane didn't cause the physical damage and therfore that 9/11 was an inside job.

Peace.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
well, for the record jack, i DO admire the work youve put into this and i do respect the strength of your convictions in this matter.

even if i dont agree with your opinions or conclusions.

im not an aviation expert. wont claim to be, but what i would like to know is if you or your group has any specific hypothesis in regards to the preplaced explosives used at the pentagon? (if youve previously posted it a link will suffice, either here or u2u)

because for ME this will be the crux of your argument honestly. i know way more about explosives than i do airplanes so for me to either dismiss (in my own mind, i dont feel the need to try to "prove you wrong") your findings or to embrace your findings and begin finding the rest of the flaws in my own theories. (which if youre interested ask and ill u2u you the link to the debate i had in the h2h forums where i feel i made a strong case against explosives in teh wtc's using more than "anarchist cookbook" for reference materials)

regardless of if i agree with you or your opinions, i do admire strong convictions and more to the point, while i dont think that 911 was the inside job many others do, i AM all in favor of a more thorough investigation that is broader in scope, truely independant, and more to the point, answers as many of the questions as possible. i feel the current published findings on 911 to date are a case of "uh...well, we gotta tell them SOMETHING" more than a comprehensive report on what really happened.

as tax payers, we kind of DESERVE the real truth.

the question is this: should a real independant investigation prove beyond a doubt that 911 was NOT an inside job...would some of you be open minded enough to believe it?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

The nature of this operation was deception via planes as psychological tools while staging covert simulation of physical destruction with pre-planted explosives. If you can't accept that basic premise as what happened in New York then I don't expect you to understand the Pentagon.



OK, so do you have this evidence of pre-planted explosives? I see your eyewitness testimony of a light path, but what about this pre-planted explosives? You don't expect me to understand it? Isn't the point of your videos to help people understand it? You can dismiss me like much of the evidence, but I am still going to ask.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Yes we KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job. There is plenty enough evidence for controlled demolition so that proves it. If you don't believe that then you are not within the appropriate discussion realm of this particular thread in this particular conspiracy forum.


OK< how about providing this evidence. Maybe I just caught the short version that didn't go over this evidence for controlled demolition that proves it. Is it on the Pentacon video? Can you share it with us? Again with the dismissal cop outs.



Originally posted by Jack Tripper
They made PLENTY of mistakes! Of course I expect that from eyewitnesses. I am talking specifically and solely about the claim of which side of the station the plane flew. This would be a particularly impossible mistake for Lagasse who wouldn't have been able to see the plane through the citgo station building. The notion that they would ALL make the SAME drastic mistake about such a simple claim is not feasible.



And what I am saying that it is not impossible for them to mistake that at all. in fact it's very common for someone to make such a mistake. it may seem odd I agree, but it's just how the mind works, and this is why in science eyewitness testimony is not considered very reliable. Mixed in with other evidence it can help, but on it's own it can't. Sometimes that all you have and you have to make due. But in this case you have a large amount of physical evidence and a small amount of eyewitness testimony.

I would expect myself to remember what side of the road my friend was hit by a car 10 feet in front of me. But I remember it wrong. What was left, I remember as right, even to this day I see it in my head a way that it didn't happen. And this is a common phenomenon. That doesn't mean this is the case with your witnesses, it means that you can't be sure they are remembering correctly.
Hell I just got attacked by a dog last night which while funny now was pretty traumatic at the moment. I remember kicking the dogs ass after it jumped me, but I can't remember clearly whether I kicked him in the face first or the stomach. I was there in NY on 9/11 and I remembered many things only to realize later I remembered them wrong. This goes for most people. We think we remember exactly how things happened but they weren't nesc that way. I remember as a kid crossing the street with a friend and he was on his bike and got hit by a car. to this day I remember him being in the right side of the road when being hit. But the skid marks the damage and everything else about the accident showed he was on the other side of the street. yet in my mind when I see it I see him on the right side. The mind does weird things. These are just my personal examples, but it's the same for everyone. And it's not a drastic mistake, it only seems like it. For four people to do that is not remotely implausible. And considering the rest of the evidence, it's very likely.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane didn't cause the physical damage and therfore that 9/11 was an inside job.


Peace.


I wish it was, but it simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. I am sure it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to you in your opinion. But it wouldn't be taken seriously in the scientific community for those reasons.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
If they were all mistaken their accounts would vary.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]


All their accounts DID vary. The issue is which part of their accounts is credible. Plus, their accounts varied greatly from the entire universe of witnesses. Saying these 4 are more credible than others needs some sort of substantiation, or it's going to look like you're cherry picking the evidence.

I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but to just point out how your position on this appears from the outside looking in.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
If they were all mistaken their accounts would vary.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]


All their accounts DID vary. The issue is which part of their accounts is credible. Plus, their accounts varied greatly from the entire universe of witnesses. Saying these 4 are more credible than others needs some sort of substantiation, or it's going to look like you're cherry picking the evidence.

I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but to just point out how your position on this appears from the outside looking in.


Their accounts varied as we would expect in regards to relatively minor details such as color of the plane etc.

But they corroborate each other 100% in the question of whether or not the plane was on the north or south of the station and/or Columbia Pike.

This is the ONLY claim that we call a "smoking gun".

It is very general and very simple and the notion that they ALL got this particular claim so wildly wrong in the same way is not feasible.

Furthermore there is not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence that directly contradicts them. Not one! Arabasque hasn't provided one, CL hasn't provided one, YOU haven't provided one. Nobody has because none exists.

Yes there is a small handful that INDIRECTLY contradict them but that would include proven fabricated stories like Lloyd England and the cab.

This fact alone proves them correct!

So the question is PURELY about the placement of the plane and it really boils down to whether you choose to believe the citgo witness accounts or Lloyd's ludicrous account.

Who do you believe more?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well, for the record jack, i DO admire the work youve put into this and i do respect the strength of your convictions in this matter.

even if i dont agree with your opinions or conclusions.

im not an aviation expert. wont claim to be, but what i would like to know is if you or your group has any specific hypothesis in regards to the preplaced explosives used at the pentagon? (if youve previously posted it a link will suffice, either here or u2u)


Other then the fact that they had plenty of time during the "renovation" of that particular wedge of the Pentagon to plant them we do not have any additional specifics. Of course we know that April Gallop was 30 feet from the alleged impact point in the E ring and she crawled out of the alleged entrance hole with her new born baby and she was not covered in jet fuel and did not see copious amounts of fire or any plane debris. Bottom line we found no evidence for a missile so the logical conclusion is that explosives were pre-planted. Since of course this was the same M.O. in New York this makes perfect sense.

We have postulated that they also may have used an incendiary such as napalm since it is made with jet fuel. Something like this may have been used in addition to explosives to help create the massive fireball.

They may have used a wall breaching kit to create the c-ring exit hole. We will never know for sure and we will never be able to prove these things. That is why eyewitness testimony is so important. It is our only hope of getting pure data. We have definitively established the final flight path and PROVEN that the plane can not have caused the physical damage. We can theorize all day long about how they simulated the damage but I don't find that to be particularly important since we will never know for sure.

I think the same thing about the towers. We have proven that the planes alone did not cause the collapses as observed but I don't think we will ever be able to prove exactly what they used for sure without "capturing" someone who planted the explosives/weaponry.





because for ME this will be the crux of your argument honestly. i know way more about explosives than i do airplanes so for me to either dismiss (in my own mind, i dont feel the need to try to "prove you wrong") your findings or to embrace your findings and begin finding the rest of the flaws in my own theories. (which if youre interested ask and ill u2u you the link to the debate i had in the h2h forums where i feel i made a strong case against explosives in teh wtc's using more than "anarchist cookbook" for reference materials)

regardless of if i agree with you or your opinions, i do admire strong convictions and more to the point, while i dont think that 911 was the inside job many others do, i AM all in favor of a more thorough investigation that is broader in scope, truely independant, and more to the point, answers as many of the questions as possible. i feel the current published findings on 911 to date are a case of "uh...well, we gotta tell them SOMETHING" more than a comprehensive report on what really happened.

as tax payers, we kind of DESERVE the real truth.


Agreed but I do not believe we need an investigation into IF 9/11 was an inside job. We need an investigation into WHO the perpetrators really are.



the question is this: should a real independant investigation prove beyond a doubt that 911 was NOT an inside job...would some of you be open minded enough to believe it?


Would you ask that question in regards to watergate or the Iran Contra affair? I'm sorry but we are WAY past that point as far as I am concerned. I know that we are not "Pentagon sponsored disinfo" and I know what I have personally seen in the course of this investigation. Plus I believe that controlled demolition at the towers and building 7 has been 100% proven so this is no longer a question for me anymore.

We do not need an investigation into IF 9/11 was an inside job. We need an investigation into who the perpetrators really are.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy


OK, so do you have this evidence of pre-planted explosives? I see your eyewitness testimony of a light path, but what about this pre-planted explosives? You don't expect me to understand it? Isn't the point of your videos to help people understand it? You can dismiss me like much of the evidence, but I am still going to ask.


Our video is simply to present evidence of the north side flight path. This means the plane could not have caused the physical damage. By process of elimination that means it was pre-planted explosives or a missile (feel free to add your own alternative if you wish). Since we found no evidence for a missile we believe the former.



OK< how about providing this evidence. Maybe I just caught the short version that didn't go over this evidence for controlled demolition that proves it. Is it on the Pentacon video? Can you share it with us? Again with the dismissal cop outs.


That's not what our movie is about. I am not here to debate that. I'm sure there are plenty of threads on this. I was just telling you what I personally believe. Take it or leave it but it's not meant to be a "cop out".






And what I am saying that it is not impossible for them to mistake that at all. in fact it's very common for someone to make such a mistake. it may seem odd I agree, but it's just how the mind works, and this is why in science eyewitness testimony is not considered very reliable. Mixed in with other evidence it can help, but on it's own it can't. Sometimes that all you have and you have to make due. But in this case you have a large amount of physical evidence and a small amount of eyewitness testimony.

I would expect myself to remember what side of the road my friend was hit by a car 10 feet in front of me. But I remember it wrong. What was left, I remember as right, even to this day I see it in my head a way that it didn't happen. And this is a common phenomenon. That doesn't mean this is the case with your witnesses, it means that you can't be sure they are remembering correctly.
Hell I just got attacked by a dog last night which while funny now was pretty traumatic at the moment. I remember kicking the dogs ass after it jumped me, but I can't remember clearly whether I kicked him in the face first or the stomach. I was there in NY on 9/11 and I remembered many things only to realize later I remembered them wrong. This goes for most people. We think we remember exactly how things happened but they weren't nesc that way. I remember as a kid crossing the street with a friend and he was on his bike and got hit by a car. to this day I remember him being in the right side of the road when being hit. But the skid marks the damage and everything else about the accident showed he was on the other side of the street. yet in my mind when I see it I see him on the right side. The mind does weird things. These are just my personal examples, but it's the same for everyone. And it's not a drastic mistake, it only seems like it. For four people to do that is not remotely implausible. And considering the rest of the evidence, it's very likely.



If four people all independently said they saw you kick him in the stomach would you suggest they were wrong?

I know that eyewitnesses are quite fallible. It's the high level of independent CORROBORATION that makes the north side claim so strong. You keep ignoring that for some reason.





I wish it was, but it simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. I am sure it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to you in your opinion. But it wouldn't be taken seriously in the scientific community for those reasons.


Ok. I am not here to debate that with you right now. I am in a conspiracy forum. Not a scientific community forum. However; there are plenty of other threads in here where that question can be discussed. I am convinced that 9/11 was an inside job and you are not.

Let's leave it at that mmmmmmkay?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
@JT: Now you've actually addressed my single biggest problem with your video - what it was actually about - and read how you approached the research, you have my greatest respect.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


It is very general and very simple and the notion that they ALL got this particular claim so wildly wrong in the same way is not feasible.


If I were on a jury and you were a lawyer making this argument, I wouldn't give it much, if any, weight. People are often mistaken. People often lie just to get attention. People are easily led and influenced. I don't think that I'm unique in believing that the 4 interviews is not evidence beyond all doubt of where the plane was on 9/11.




Yes there is a small handful that INDIRECTLY contradict them but that would include proven fabricated stories like Lloyd England and the cab.

This fact alone proves them correct!


Now you're losing me on your logic. Because an aging cab driver isn't able to recreate his story to your standards doesn't prove the other 4 witnesses are right.


So the question is PURELY about the placement of the plane and it really boils down to whether you choose to believe the citgo witness accounts or Lloyd's ludicrous account.

Who do you believe more?



Now you're falsely framing the argument around the data that YOU want people to look at. This is why people don't take your argument seriously. The location of the plane isn't just about 5 people -your 4 witnesses and Lloyd. It's about the total body of evidence, which you repeatedly ignore.

I think the trap you're falling into is that you're used to preaching to the choir -people who accept anything anybody tells them to make it look like the government did 9/11. Your "the flight path is proven by these 4 witnesses" argument isn't going to cut it in the real world. However, it might make you a celebrity in the Michael Moore/Loose Change world.

Of course I could be wrong. But ask yourself, has the world beaten a path to your door since you released the "smoking gun" PentaCon movie?

The problem is that outside of the 4 witnesses, there is ZERO physical or eye-witness testimony that corroborates their story of a large plane flying north of the Citgo and over the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

If I were on a jury and you were a lawyer making this argument, I wouldn't give it much, if any, weight. People are often mistaken. People often lie just to get attention. People are easily led and influenced. I don't think that I'm unique in believing that the 4 interviews is not evidence beyond all doubt of where the plane was on 9/11.



If you were on a jury and you heard independent testimony from 4 individuals who claim the same thing of course you would believe it. Especially considering the simple nature of this claim and the impossibility of Lagasse seeing the plane through the building on the south side.




Now you're losing me on your logic. Because an aging cab driver isn't able to recreate his story to your standards doesn't prove the other 4 witnesses are right.



Perhaps you don't remember or are unfamiliar with his account. He had no problems recreating his story in detail. It's simply physically impossible. His account is a clear fabrication. The fact that his account is so dubious lends credence to the notion that the citgo witnesses are remembering accurately.





Now you're falsely framing the argument around the data that YOU want people to look at. This is why people don't take your argument seriously. The location of the plane isn't just about 5 people -your 4 witnesses and Lloyd. It's about the total body of evidence, which you repeatedly ignore.


Nothing is ignored. The physical evidence is extremely questionable and anomalous which is what started us investigating to begin with. Now we know why. Out of over 100 previously published accounts NONE directly contradict them. We have heavily analyzed and tried to contact virtually all of them.



I think the trap you're falling into is that you're used to preaching to the choir -people who accept anything anybody tells them to make it look like the government did 9/11. Your "the flight path is proven by these 4 witnesses" argument isn't going to cut it in the real world. However, it might make you a celebrity in the Michael Moore/Loose Change world.


Now you are just being flippant. The data is extremely strong and not even close to being refuted. Yes there is a mental barrier with most people in regards to 9/11 but this is simply what we are up against.



Of course I could be wrong. But ask yourself, has the world beaten a path to your door since you released the "smoking gun" PentaCon movie?


The response has been phenomenal and will only continue to grow. The fact that mainstream media and the bulk of the population has their heads in the sand when it comes to 9/11 is slowly but surely changing. This does not negate the data that we have uncovered in this investigation.



The problem is that outside of the 4 witnesses, there is ZERO physical or eye-witness testimony that corroborates their story of a large plane flying north of the Citgo and over the Pentagon.


Circular logic.

The 4 witnesses prove the plane did not cause the physical damage. The fact that people were mostly fooled by the military sleight of hand illusion and the fact that initial mainstream media reports focused on what supported the official story and reported what the government told them does not negate this.

Listen: all that I ask is if you no longer believe that the investigation we have conducted is a "hoax" that you publicly admit this fact and retract your statement.

In fact the only fair way to do that would be to create another thread titled: "The PentaCon is not a hoax".



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
What are you NOT getting?

These aren't just some random witnesses. These are witnesses who had been used to establish the impact of the plane.

For a period of time, i didn't trust Brooks and Lagasse. We went there to see if they would clarify what they saw.

When i spoke with Robert. I was floored to learn that he supported what Lagasse had said.

I had actually thought that Brooks was in on it, because he said he literally saw the plane clip the light pole.

He did not. He clarified what he really saw.

They were all honest genuine witnesses who ALL said the same thing, can prove they were there, were not just some random "witnesses" on a highway later releasing vague satements about a plane hitting the building, they are not people who DIDN'T have a view of the pentagon (like a good majority of Arab's witnesses).

Thousands have used Lagasse in a debate as proof of an impact. You try and use him to state that we "ignored" that he thinks it impacted-that he said he saw it impact. That is a blatant lie and is IRRELEVANT to the placement of the plane. The man said it in June 2003-it was on the Northside.

You have genuine witnesses, genuine witnesses who saw a plane and not an impact, genuine witnesses who think they saw an impact, and then the plants. You are lumping them all into one category and that is VERY deceptive.

Brooks has admitted "our film was an eye-opener" and that "anything is possible" when it comes to the possibilty that he was fooled.

Lagasse respected the fact that we came to him. He thinks people like you are nuts who WEREN'T even there.

Robert stands by what he saw.

But of course, you are going to believe and utilize the accounts of 6-7 usa today reporters and editors all lined up on the road, stuck in traffic in .16 of a mile to see the impact. because they said they were there. You are going to believe Henry Ticknor, Allen Cleveland, and Susan Carrol who did not see the impact, and could not even see the Pentagon from their view. You are going use "saw the plane impact" to "prove" it wasn't on the North side and didn't pull up. Right.

And you wonder why we get so testy.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
We're seeing a distressing and improper increase in an acidic tone amongst many contributors to 9/11 related topics.

This is a reminder to focus on the subject matter and not snide or insulting remarks.

Any future content in this thread contrary to the spirit of our Terms & Conditions may result in an immediate posting ban.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Formal announcement:

Jack Tripper has been retired.

I will now post with my real name.

Aldo Marquis is my research partner in Citizen Investigation Team and we have created The PentaCon together.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Listen: all that I ask is if you no longer believe that the investigation we have conducted is a "hoax" that you publicly admit this fact and retract your statement.

In fact the only fair way to do that would be to create another thread titled: "The PentaCon is not a hoax".


That's been taken care of.

I understand the other points you've made in response to my last post, although I have a different view on some of the conclusions you've reached. My only suggestion is that you need to gear your evidence and your arguments to the non-CT, skeptical public if your really want to make a difference.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join