Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest


Posted by: bLUEbYTE84 Mar 13 2007, 10:04 PM
Hello Guys,.

My friend emailed me a link to a new pentagon movie called PENTACON.
It was pretty boring but somehow i managed to listen to all eyewitness reports until i heard the narrator claiming that the airplane did not hit the building but flew over the pentagon instead.

IS THIS SERIOUS? - Forget it. All i wanna know is:

How many eyewitnesses actually saw the plane flying over? No blabbering, just one Number, please.

Thanks in advance.
Frank

Posted by: chucksheen Mar 13 2007, 10:33 PM
You came to the Loose Change Forums after watching The Pentacon?

Have you seen this 10 minute trailer?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8014560849426995992&q=the+ultimate+con

Posted by: Jarroyo Mar 13 2007, 10:42 PM
QUOTE
How many eyewitnesses actually saw the plane flying over? No blabbering, just one Number, please.


0.
Zero.
None.

Posted by: bLUEbYTE84 Mar 13 2007, 11:55 PM
QUOTE (Jarroyo @ Mar 13 2007, 10:42 PM)
QUOTE
How many eyewitnesses actually saw the plane flying over? No blabbering, just one Number, please.


0.
Zero.
None.

Thanks a lot, man. Thats what i thought.

Posted by: Citizen Merc Mar 13 2007, 11:58 PM
Kieth Wheelhouse
Kelly Knowles
Pam Young
Joel Sucherman
Vin Narayanan

Posted by: Jarroyo Mar 14 2007, 12:02 AM
QUOTE (Citizen Merc @ Mar 14 2007, 12:58 AM)
Kieth Wheelhouse
Kelly Knowles
Pam Young
Joel Sucherman
Vin Narayanan

rolleyes.gif

bLUEbYTE84, check the other threads about the Pentacon so you understand. The Pentagon section is swarmed by these.

No one saw a flyover, NO ONE. These names are simply misinterpretation or deliberately twisted opinions

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 12:03 AM
Since you have seen the north of the citgo witnesses and clearly don't believe they were remotely correct in where they placed the plane please answer this for me:


When you watch Bill, Chad, and Robert give their testimony do you think.....

a. They are insane.
b. They simultaneously hallucinated the opposite of reality.
c. They all accidentally remembered the opposite of reality.
d. Any combination of a, b, and c between them.
e. They remembered the approximate placement of the plane accurately.


Feel free to provide an alternative answer if you can think of one.

user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

Posted by: lookinaround Mar 14 2007, 12:21 AM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 12:03 AM)
Since you have seen the north of the citgo witnesses and clearly don't believe they were remotely correct in where they placed the plane please answer this for me:


When you watch Bill, Chad, and Robert give their testimony do you think.....

a. They are insane.
b. They simultaneously hallucinated the opposite of reality.
c. They all accidentally remembered the opposite of reality.
d. Any combination of a, b, and c between them.
e. They remembered the approximate placement of the plane accurately.


Feel free to provide an alternative answer if you can think of one.

user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

You're not arguing the topic of the thread Lyte....

Logically, if you had witnesses who actually SAW a flyover, I'd like to think that you would've opted to put them in your movie, rather than the four "North of Citgo" guys, as actually seeing the plane flying up and away from the Pentagon would be a much more solid case. (And a much larger "Smoking Gun"... as your film says.)

Instead, you decide to go with four witnesses who, even though they place the plane on the north side of the Citgo, still say the plane hit the Pentagon (a tiny detail both you and Merc continually ignore).

Oh and I'm going with option...

F.) After 5 years, their recolection of the events that day might not be entirely accurate. (Obviously accurate enough for your flick, but nowhere near substantial enough for a grand jury.)

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 12:29 AM
This thread is sarcastic and your answer dodged the question.


Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 12:34 AM
QUOTE (Jarroyo @ Mar 14 2007, 05:02 AM)
QUOTE (Citizen Merc @ Mar 14 2007, 12:58 AM)
Kieth Wheelhouse
Kelly Knowles
Pam Young
Joel Sucherman
Vin Narayanan

rolleyes.gif

bLUEbYTE84, check the other threads about the Pentacon so you understand. The Pentagon section is swarmed by these.

No one saw a flyover, NO ONE. These names are simply misinterpretation or deliberately twisted opinions

Are you really still this clueless?

How do you explain these accounts of a plane shadowing the jet and veering off just after the explosion J?



Posted by: bLUEbYTE84 Mar 14 2007, 01:51 AM
Look, Guys. I asked a simple question.
This is what this thread is about - How many eyewitnessed said:

I SAW the plane flying over the pentagon

Honest question, honest answer: A simple number will do it, no further denial.
Thank you.


Posted by: SDG guy Mar 14 2007, 07:57 AM
QUOTE (bLUEbYTE84 @ Mar 14 2007, 06:51 AM)
Look, Guys. I asked a simple question.
This is what this thread is about - How many eyewitnessed said:

I SAW the plane flying over the pentagon

Honest question, honest answer: A simple number will do it, no further denial.
Thank you.

No one has has ever publically stated they witnessed a flyover. Nobody.

Period.

The problem with the "witnesses" Lyte and Merc produced is that they even contradict THEMSELVES.

Legasse, at one point said, (and I'm paraphrasing) "There's only two things I'm sure of. The plane flew down this path (north of Citgo) and that it hit the Pentagon."

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 11:41 AM
QUOTE (bLUEbYTE84 @ Mar 14 2007, 06:51 AM)
Look, Guys. I asked a simple question.
This is what this thread is about - How many eyewitnessed said:

I SAW the plane flying over the pentagon

Honest question, honest answer: A simple number will do it, no further denial.
Thank you.

There are people that say they saw a plane fly over.

We have never claimed that we have a witness that claims they saw "the" plane fly over.

Anyone who did were told that they saw another plane and pointed to news reports and witness accounts of other planes.

Bottom line....................WE DO NO CARE IF YOU BELIEVE THE PLANE FLEW OVER.

We simply believe it is the most logical conclusion.

Our hypothesis is secondary to the evidence that the plane was on the north side of the station.

Please, by all means, feel free to provide an alternative explanation as to what happened after the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station.

Posted by: SDG guy Mar 14 2007, 12:11 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 04:41 PM)
Please, by all means, feel free to provide an alternative explanation as to what happened after the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station.

That's easy.

The plane didn't fly north of the Citgo.

Remember, YOUR OWN poll here showed something like 80% of the people HERE didn't buy into that theory.

At any other Non-CT board, the results of a poll like that would have been even more against you.

Quit spamming the board with your "north of Citgo" gibberish.

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 12:45 PM
QUOTE (SDG guy @ Mar 14 2007, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 04:41 PM)
Please, by all means, feel free to provide an alternative explanation as to what happened after the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station.

That's easy.

The plane didn't fly north of the Citgo.

Remember, YOUR OWN poll here showed something like 80% of the people HERE didn't buy into that theory.

At any other Non-CT board, the results of a poll like that would have been even more against you.

Quit spamming the board with your "north of Citgo" gibberish.

The moderators at this forum determined that the polls were stacked and therefore deleted them.

Imagine that!

North of the citgo is not my "gibberish" it's what the eyewitnesses saw.

So if you don't believe the plane was on the north side of the station after hearing the testimony in the PentaCon please answer this:

When you watch Bill, Chad, and Robert give their testimony do you think.....

a. They are insane.
b. They simultaneously hallucinated the opposite of reality.
c. They all accidentally remembered the opposite of reality.
d. Any combination of a, b, and c between them.
e. They remembered the approximate placement of the plane accurately.

Posted by: SDG guy Mar 14 2007, 01:07 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 05:45 PM)
QUOTE (SDG guy @ Mar 14 2007, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 04:41 PM)
Please, by all means, feel free to provide an alternative explanation as to what happened after the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station.

That's easy.

The plane didn't fly north of the Citgo.

Remember, YOUR OWN poll here showed something like 80% of the people HERE didn't buy into that theory.

At any other Non-CT board, the results of a poll like that would have been even more against you.

Quit spamming the board with your "north of Citgo" gibberish.

The moderators at this forum determined that the polls were stacked and therefore deleted them.

Imagine that!

North of the citgo is not my "gibberish" it's what the eyewitnesses saw.

So if you don't believe the plane was on the north side of the station after hearing the testimony in the PentaCon please answer this:

When you watch Bill, Chad, and Robert give their testimony do you think.....

a. They are insane.
b. They simultaneously hallucinated the opposite of reality.
c. They all accidentally remembered the opposite of reality.
d. Any combination of a, b, and c between them.
e. They remembered the approximate placement of the plane accurately.

I don't recall any Mod ever posting that the polls were stacked.

I think they deleted them because there was so much other crap from you and Merc in there along with some personal attacks made by both sides.

As for your question, none of the above.

Your first guy in NO WAY proved your theory. His line of sight IN NO WAY showed a north of Citgo path.

I don't think the others are "insane" or "hallucinated the opposite of reality." Why do you even use such insulting words towards them?

I think they were simply confused and didn't remember things exactly correct 5 years later. You seem to think that their memory of the flight path is more significant than their memory of the plane HITTING THE PENTAGON.

I, and the vast majority of others, completely disagree. The defining EVENT was the crash. A mistaken memory of the exact flight path moments before such an event is certainly understandable.

You know that sooner or later someone is going to get ahold of Legasse and ask him if ONLY one of those two memories could be correct (north of citgo or that it crashed into the pentagon) which would he bet his life on?

I think we all know what he'll say.

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 01:43 PM
We HAVE talked to them since the movie was released and they all stand by their testimony 100%.

Lagasse would not answer such a ridiculous question.

He knows what he saw.

And sorry but clearly the citgo wintesses had a MUCH better view of what side of the station the plane flew than the alleged impact.

In fact all 3 admit the fireball concealed the alleged impact.


IVXX most certainly did state that he deleted the polls because of their suspicious activity.

Posted by: 911detective Mar 14 2007, 02:09 PM
How many votes did you end up with?
I think it was nine? That includes you and Smerc. So seven then.
Are you saying that jrefers somehow rigged it, so that hardly anyone voted for your ridiculous little video?

Posted by: tache Mar 14 2007, 03:56 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 05:03 AM)
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

Is that the same Brooks who saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150))

"full throttle" , "clip the lamp post"

Is this the same Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, interviewed on November 25, 2001?

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000152))

"Aircraft has flown into the side of the building", "explosions from the CNG",
"where the aircraft hit the building" ?

Is this the same William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, interviewed on December 4, 2001?


Posted by: bLUEbYTE84 Mar 14 2007, 04:52 PM

QUOTE: We have never claimed that we have a witness that claims they saw the plane fly over.

So all eyewitnesses saw the impact.
No eyewitnesses saw a fly over.

Conclusion:

QUOTE: We simply believe it is the most logical conclusion.

HALLELUJAH!

Seriously, how old are you guys and do you use drugs?



Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 04:56 PM
Clearly the citgo wintesses had a MUCH better view of what side of the station the plane flew than the alleged impact.

Posted by: 911detective Mar 14 2007, 05:07 PM
Cant you see when the games up Lyte?
I dont want to be over cynical, but I am pretty sure you are well aware that your film is bullshit and that you are attempting to make money,come what may, on the back of the death of hundreds of people.
Please tell me that isnt the case.

Posted by: bLUEbYTE84 Mar 14 2007, 05:43 PM
QUOTE: Clearly the citgo wintesses had a MUCH better view of what side of the station the plane flew than the alleged impact.

You mean the guys in the video that SAW AN IMPACT OF AN AIRPLANE?

I know it is hard to accept a failure and i know that you guys probably spend a lot of energy into your hobby. But i tell ya what adults do - and that is the reason why they are adults:

They accept own failures, no matter how painful it is.

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 05:48 PM
Nope.

They believed the plane impacted but they ALL admitted that the impact was concealed by the fireball.

Haven't you watched their testimony?

Posted by: bLUEbYTE84 Mar 14 2007, 06:13 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 05:48 PM)
They believed the plane impacted but they ALL admitted that the impact was concealed by the fireball.


Bullshit! That would mean that they saw an explosion BEFORE IMPACT.
And you are suggesting that they SAW THE PLANE FLYING TOO HIGH TO HIT.

Is this what they actually said?

Let me ask again: Do you guys smoke something? Seriously - if you tend to wish that there is a pentagon conspiracy then your brains will connect the dots in a personal favored way ... faaaaaaaaar away from any logic.


Posted by: 911detective Mar 14 2007, 06:15 PM
Lytes not delusional, hes perfectly sane and is using a tried and trusted method of making a living out of conspiracy theories. He has seen others doing just the same and succeeding and is trying to jump on a lucrative bandwagon.
Granted, his film is shit, but that shouldnt stop him in this business.
Von Daniken made a fortune out of bullshit, the only and major difference is that Lyte is using a recent and shockingly callous atrocity, on his own people, to further his aims.

Posted by: bLUEbYTE84 Mar 14 2007, 06:32 PM
QUOTE (911detective @ Mar 14 2007, 06:15 PM)
Lytes not delusional, hes perfectly sane and is using a tried and trusted method of making a living out of conspiracy theories. He has seen others doing just the same and succeeding and is trying to jump on a lucrative bandwagon.
Granted, his film is shit, but that shouldnt stop him in this business.
Von Daniken made a fortune out of bullshit, the only and major difference is that Lyte is using a recent and shockingly callous atrocity, on his own people, to further his aims.

So he is dividing his fellow conspiracy theorists to gain some bucks? How sick is that?

Posted by: 911detective Mar 14 2007, 06:40 PM
I think hes never heard of the phrase "honour among thieves".
Its dog eat dog, in this game.

Posted by: Terrorcell Mar 14 2007, 07:21 PM
QUOTE (SDG guy @ Mar 14 2007, 06:07 PM)
I don't recall any Mod ever posting that the polls were stacked.


Now I know you just lie for the sake of lying. Those votes had vote totals exceeding far the average amounts of votes seen on these boards. Everyone is well aware how Randi's Kids operates. Remember who we are accusing and what we are accusing them of. The amateur operations don't fool anyone.

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Terrorcell Mar 14 2007, 07:23 PM
Where the f*ck these 2 clowns come from?

blink.gif

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 14 2007, 07:38 PM
a simply fact
no engines where analysed by Rolls Royce in regard to the Rolls Royce engines that where attached to that aircraft (they have never been found)

no engines means no case which in turn means no 757 hit the pentagon
which part of QED are you missing ...

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 14 2007, 08:27 PM
So what the count at now?

Oh, that's right.... 0.

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 14 2007, 08:35 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 02:27 AM)
So what the count at now?

Oh, that's right.... 0.

i count two missing engines
bugger the witnesses ...

Posted by: OnlyStL Mar 14 2007, 08:49 PM
QUOTE (tache @ Mar 14 2007, 08:56 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 05:03 AM)
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

Is that the same Brooks who saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150))

"full throttle" , "clip the lamp post"

Is this the same Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, interviewed on November 25, 2001?

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000152))

"Aircraft has flown into the side of the building", "explosions from the CNG",
"where the aircraft hit the building" ?

Is this the same William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, interviewed on December 4, 2001?

hey Lyte, are these the same two witnesses, just for clarification...You have seen and heard them up close, are they the same ones?

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 14 2007, 08:52 PM
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 07:35 PM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 02:27 AM)
So what the count at now?

Oh, that's right.... 0.

i count two missing engines
bugger the witnesses ...

laugh.gif laugh.gif

Are you still trying to claim you're an engineer at Rolls Royce? rolleyes.gif

You never did explain this...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

user posted image

Care to explain it this time, Mr. Engineer?

Posted by: OnlyStL Mar 14 2007, 08:56 PM
nevermind, I see explanation in another thread... huh.gif

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 14 2007, 09:00 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 02:52 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 07:35 PM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 02:27 AM)
So what the count at now?

Oh, that's right.... 0.

i count two missing engines
bugger the witnesses ...

laugh.gif laugh.gif

Are you still trying to claim you're an engineer at Rolls Royce? rolleyes.gif

You never did explain this...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

user posted image

Care to explain it this time, Mr. Engineer?

what was found at the site was not one of are engines

(remember there are 2 of them)

each engine (net) 3.647 tons
GROSS (i am learning US) nearly 6 tons each fitted

(i have spoken to one of are retired engineers)

without the engines you do not have a case ...

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 14 2007, 09:02 PM
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:00 PM)
what was found at the site was not one of are engines

(remember there are 2 of them)

each engine (net) 3.647 tons
GROSS (i am learning US) nearly 6 tons each fitted

(i have spoken to one of are retired engineers)

without the engines you do not have a case ...

Uh huh... rolleyes.gif

laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: OnlyStL Mar 14 2007, 09:06 PM
What I'm confused about though, and maybe someone could explain, is how do we take their testimony pertaining to the flight path to be correct (5 yrs later) and disregard their testimony about the light poles and the impact that they both describe within months of the event, not five+ years later? blink.gif

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 09:11 PM
Look at what a pathetic amount of parts that were allegedly found at the Pentagon!

Inside:
user posted image

Outside:
user posted image


But yet there are supposedly people part of this truth movement that still believe the plane actually hit?!!
blink.gif

Talk about being disingenuous.


How can you possibly not believe that so few parts were planted yet still assert that this is was the most complex world wide black operation in all world history?


Posted by: SDG guy Mar 14 2007, 09:12 PM
QUOTE (OnlyStL @ Mar 15 2007, 02:06 AM)
What I'm confused about though, and maybe someone could explain, is how do we take their testimony pertaining to the flight path to be correct (5 yrs later) and disregard their testimony about the light poles and the impact that they both describe within months of the event, not five+ years later? blink.gif

Only their memory of the flight path is correct and pertinent.

In regards to everything else they were "fooled."

duh.

Posted by: SDG guy Mar 14 2007, 09:13 PM
QUOTE (Terrorcell @ Mar 15 2007, 12:21 AM)
QUOTE (SDG guy @ Mar 14 2007, 06:07 PM)
I don't recall any Mod ever posting that the polls were stacked.


Now I know you just lie for the sake of lying. Those votes had vote totals exceeding far the average amounts of votes seen on these boards. Everyone is well aware how Randi's Kids operates. Remember who we are accusing and what we are accusing them of. The amateur operations don't fool anyone.

rolleyes.gif

And that there is some funny chit...

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 09:15 PM
QUOTE (OnlyStL @ Mar 15 2007, 02:06 AM)
What I'm confused about though, and maybe someone could explain, is how do we take their testimony pertaining to the flight path to be correct (5 yrs later) and disregard their testimony about the light poles and the impact that they both describe within months of the event, not five+ years later? blink.gif

Because they admitted that they deduced the poles being hit and they ALL admitted that the fireball concealed the impact.

Oh and the simple right or left claim of where the plane flew was corroborated by all of them as well.

user posted image

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 14 2007, 09:19 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 03:02 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:00 PM)
what was found at the site was not one of are engines

(remember there are 2 of them)

each engine (net) 3.647 tons
GROSS (i am learning US) nearly 6 tons each fitted

(i have spoken to one of are retired engineers)

without the engines you do not have a case ...

Uh huh... rolleyes.gif

laugh.gif laugh.gif

believe what you wish
but please show us the 2 i repeat 2 engines

oh please, just too put my mind at rest ...

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 14 2007, 09:21 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 08:11 PM)
Look at what a pathetic amount of parts that were allegedly found at the Pentagon!

Inside:
user posted image

Outside:
user posted image


But yet there are supposedly people part of this truth movement that still believe the plane actually hit?!!
blink.gif

Hello, spinmaster Lyte.

Yes, there are people that are part of this truth movement that believe a plane actually hit. From the polls I've seen here, it seems to me that quite a few here believe that as well.

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 14 2007, 09:32 PM
you show a lot of pretty pictures
but where in them are our 2 times
i repeat 2 times RB211 Rolls Royce engines

without them you have no evidence that a 757 crashed at the pentagon

ps. where are our engines ...

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 14 2007, 09:37 PM
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:32 PM)
you show a lot of pretty pictures
but where in them are our 2 times
i repeat 2 times RB211 Rolls Royce engines

without them you have no evidence that a 757 crashed at the pentagon

ps. where are our engines ...

Do you want them spit-polished too?

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 14 2007, 09:39 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:32 PM)
you show a lot of pretty pictures
but where in them are our 2 times
i repeat 2 times RB211 Rolls Royce engines

without them you have no evidence that a 757 crashed at the pentagon

ps. where are our engines ...

Do you want them spit-polished too?

yes please
it may make it easier to analyse them ...

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 14 2007, 09:41 PM
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:32 PM)
you show a lot of pretty pictures
but where in them are our 2 times
i repeat 2 times RB211 Rolls Royce engines

without them you have no evidence that a 757 crashed at the pentagon

ps. where are our engines ...

Do you want them spit-polished too?

yes please
it may make it easier to analyse them ...

Analyse this...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

user posted image

Posted by: Terrorcell Mar 14 2007, 09:41 PM


All Your Base Are Belong To Us.


ninja.gif

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 14 2007, 09:50 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:32 PM)
you show a lot of pretty pictures
but where in them are our 2 times
i repeat 2 times RB211 Rolls Royce engines

without them you have no evidence that a 757 crashed at the pentagon

ps. where are our engines ...

Do you want them spit-polished too?

yes please
it may make it easier to analyse them ...

Analyse this...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

user posted image

i have

where is the second one

as i have stated there are 2 that's "two" engines


all that is ever shown by you is "AN ENGINE" was found
(with pretty pictures)

and that engine is not in fact an RB211 engine
(in no way shape or form)


please show (with your pretty pictures)
2 that's "two" RB211 engines that where found at the crash site

without the engines i repeat you have no case ...



Posted by: lookinaround Mar 14 2007, 10:03 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 09:11 PM)
Look at what a pathetic amount of parts that were allegedly found at the Pentagon!

Inside:
user posted image

Outside:
user posted image


But yet there are supposedly people part of this truth movement that still believe the plane actually hit?!!
blink.gif

Talk about being disingenuous.


How can you possibly not believe that so few parts were planted yet still assert that this is was the most complex world wide black operation in all world history?

Are you saying that you know for a FACT that every piece of plane debris there in that post were the only photographic evidence of plane debris??

You seem to forget that there's a solid chance that not everything was photographed and uploaded to the internet for all to see.

Posted by: mosesp Mar 14 2007, 10:09 PM
QUOTE (lookinaround @ Mar 14 2007, 10:03 PM)
You seem to forget that there's a solid chance that not everything was photographed and uploaded to the internet for all to see.

Good catch - this seems to be more than very likely. But of course - it doesn't matter because the plane flew over the pentagon.

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 10:32 PM
QUOTE (lookinaround @ Mar 15 2007, 03:03 AM)

Are you saying that you know for a FACT that every piece of plane debris there in that post were the only photographic evidence of plane debris??

You seem to forget that there's a solid chance that not everything was photographed and uploaded to the internet for all to see.

Ummmmm.....

Clearly there weren't any more parts outside of the pentagon.

But if you are part of the truth movement and you find nothing dubious about the fact that there hasn't been FULL DISCLOSURE and POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of every part that was found then I'd say you're borderline retarded.

Oh yeah......you're not part of the truth movement.....you're a jrefer!
dry.gif

Go figure!


Posted by: mosesp Mar 14 2007, 10:36 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 10:32 PM)
QUOTE (lookinaround @ Mar 15 2007, 03:03 AM)

Are you saying that you know for a FACT that every piece of plane debris there in that post were the only photographic evidence of plane debris??

You seem to forget that there's a solid chance that not everything was photographed and uploaded to the internet for all to see.

Ummmmm.....

Clearly there weren't any more parts outside of the pentagon.

But if you are part of the truth movement and you find nothing dubious about the fact that there hasn't been FULL DISCLOSURE and POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of every part that was found then I'd say you're borderline retarded.

Oh yeah......you're not part of the truth movement.....you're a jrefer!
dry.gif

Go figure!

What exactly is a "POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION"?

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 10:46 PM
QUOTE (mosesp @ Mar 15 2007, 03:36 AM)

What exactly is a "POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION"?

Great question mosesp!

The answer is http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4795

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 10:49 PM
If you prefer not to read through all the bickering the answer is here:

QUOTE

Positive ID means part numbers from the parts matched with maintenance logs from the airline, Radar with fluent contact.. backed up with visual ID.

Posted by: mosesp Mar 14 2007, 11:04 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 10:49 PM)
If you prefer not to read through all the bickering the answer is here:

QUOTE

Positive ID means part numbers from the parts matched with maintenance logs from the airline, Radar with fluent contact.. backed up with visual ID.

And what does this proof? That flight77 flew over the pentagon but simultaneously lost some of its parts during flight? Sorry, i don't understand it.


Posted by: lookinaround Mar 14 2007, 11:07 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 10:32 PM)
Ummmmm.....

Clearly there weren't any more parts outside of the pentagon.

Clearly? A couple photos taken outside the Pentagon CLEARLY shows the entire area and every last bit of debris on the lawn? And I'm the border-line retarded one?

Enlyten us. What would lead you to arrive at the conclusion that "clearly there weren't any more parts outside the Pentagon."

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 11:11 PM
QUOTE (mosesp @ Mar 15 2007, 04:04 AM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 10:49 PM)
If you prefer not to read through all the bickering the answer is here:

QUOTE

Positive ID means part numbers from the parts matched with maintenance logs from the airline, Radar with fluent contact.. backed up with visual ID.

And what does this proof? That flight77 flew over the pentagon but simultaneously lost some of its parts during flight? Sorry, i don't understand it.

The very few parts that were found were NOT postively IDed even though this was the worst crime on American soil.

If you don't have a problem with that then you obviously are not interested in the truth behind what happened on 9/11.

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 11:19 PM
QUOTE (lookinaround @ Mar 15 2007, 04:07 AM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 10:32 PM)
Ummmmm.....

Clearly there weren't any more parts outside of the pentagon.

Clearly? A couple photos taken outside the Pentagon CLEARLY shows the entire area and every last bit of debris on the lawn? And I'm the border-line retarded one?

Enlyten us. What would lead you to arrive at the conclusion that "clearly there weren't any more parts outside the Pentagon."

Couple photos??
rolleyes.gif

I guess you are new to this.

Dude.

There are 100's of photos from every angle imaginable and most are very high resolution.

There may have been a few more scraps but that was IT for anything remotely significant.


Add to that the recently released Leo Titus collection from the inside and it amounts to BUPKIS!

Posted by: lookinaround Mar 14 2007, 11:21 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (lookinaround @ Mar 15 2007, 04:07 AM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 10:32 PM)
Ummmmm.....

Clearly there weren't any more parts outside of the pentagon.

Clearly? A couple photos taken outside the Pentagon CLEARLY shows the entire area and every last bit of debris on the lawn? And I'm the border-line retarded one?

Enlyten us. What would lead you to arrive at the conclusion that "clearly there weren't any more parts outside the Pentagon."

Couple photos??
rolleyes.gif

I guess you are new to this.

Dude.

There are 100's of photos from every angle imaginable and most are very high resolution.

There may have been a few more scraps but that was IT for anything remotely significant.


Add to that the recently released Leo Titus collection from the inside and it amounts to BUMPKIS!

It's bupkis.

And thank you for reinforcing the fact that unless it's in a video or photographed, it never existed (unless of course it IS in a video and photograph and it's not what we want to see, therefore it was faked/planted/superimposed/etc.)

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 14 2007, 11:25 PM
Oh excuse me.

You are quite correct it most certainly IS bupkis.

So are you suggesting that a verticle stabilizer, engine, wing, seat, luggage or any other substantial part simply blended in with the landscape?

Seriously.

There is video footage too you know not to mention the fact that the anomalous damage is what tipped us all off to all the questions in the first place.

Get a grip.

Posted by: mosesp Mar 14 2007, 11:32 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 11:11 PM)

The very few parts that were found were NOT postively IDed even though this was the worst crime on American soil.

If you don't have a problem with that then you obviously are not interested in the truth behind what happened on 9/11.

And how do you know that? Do you think they send all their investigation results straightly to 911Blogger???

I don't remember who said it but i highly guess that we all didn't see 95% of all photos and results. Simply because the media didn't investigate nor report about all these boring details for the average american mind.

I don't even see a reason to publish every detail. This is only interesting for us and they don't care about us. The rest of the world gives a **** about positive ID's of a piece of debris at the pentagon.

You might contact the investigators at the pentagon and especially the air traffic controllers at Reagan International on 9/11 to check your flight over theory. THEY KNOW IT FOR SURE.

Everything else is speculation and as far i know you are investigating the pentagon, right?

Posted by: lookinaround Mar 14 2007, 11:36 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 14 2007, 11:25 PM)
Oh excuse me.

You are quite correct it most certainly IS bupkis.

So are you suggesting that a verticle stabilizer, engine, wing, seat, luggage or any other substantial part simply blended in with the landscape?

Seriously.

There is video footage too you know not to mention the fact that the anomalous damage is what tipped us all off to all the questions in the first place.

Get a grip.

No. I'm suggesting that the people on the scene that day were not concerned with satisfying the needs of conspiracy theorists 5 years down the road by photographing every last shred of Flight 77 and uploading them onto Google Images.

Not that it would matter to you anyway. Every shred of physical evidence you've ever seen from the Pentagon has been planted, right? Why would more pictures change your mind?

Posted by: davel Mar 14 2007, 11:48 PM
QUOTE (mosesp @ Mar 15 2007, 04:32 AM)
You might contact the investigators at the pentagon and especially the air traffic controllers at Reagan International on 9/11 to check your flight over theory. THEY KNOW IT FOR SURE.

Exactly! Anything else is a waste of time and my nerves. I will start a poll.

Posted by: Micpsi Mar 16 2007, 05:20 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 02:41 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 15 2007, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 14 2007, 08:32 PM)
you show a lot of pretty pictures
but where in them are our 2 times
i repeat 2 times RB211 Rolls Royce engines

without them you have no evidence that a 757 crashed at the pentagon

ps. where are our engines ...

Do you want them spit-polished too?

yes please
it may make it easier to analyse them ...

Analyse this...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

user posted image

Well, that makes one engine. Where's the other?

And why could those engine components not be planted? As proof that a Boeing crashed into the Pentagon, these photos are absolutely useless until factory numbers stamped on these components are certified as being that of the engine of AA77. They merely beg the question that all debris came from a crashed plane and was not planted. There are serious reasons for doubting this, i.e. the LACK of debris. Geddit?

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 16 2007, 07:38 PM
i am very glad i am not the only one to be thinking along these lines

2 engines need to be produced
not 1 but 2 as they happen to be fitted to the aircraft ...

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 16 2007, 08:29 PM
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 06:38 PM)
i am very glad i am not the only one to be thinking along these lines

2 engines need to be produced
not 1 but 2 as they happen to be fitted to the aircraft ...

Yes, Mr. Rolls Royce Engineer, we know what lines you think along. Do you have an explanation for what was found?

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 16 2007, 08:31 PM
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.


Posted by: Gezzer Mar 16 2007, 08:33 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 17 2007, 02:29 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 06:38 PM)
i am very glad i am not the only one to be thinking along these lines

2 engines need to be produced
not 1 but 2 as they happen to be fitted to the aircraft ...

Yes, Mr. Rolls Royce Engineer, we know what lines you think along. Do you have an explanation for what was found?

i do not have to explain "what was found"
but i can explain "what was not found" ...

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 16 2007, 08:36 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 16 2007, 07:31 PM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

Now that's irony! laugh.gif

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 16 2007, 08:36 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 17 2007, 02:31 AM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

the "ONE" engine that was found (a type unkown) has never been identified ...

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 16 2007, 08:40 PM
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 17 2007, 02:31 AM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

the "ONE" engine that was found (a type unkown) has never been identified ...

Tell us more about are Rolls Royce history, Mr. Engineer.

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 16 2007, 08:42 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 17 2007, 02:40 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 17 2007, 02:31 AM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

the "ONE" engine that was found (a type unkown) has never been identified ...

Tell us more about are Rolls Royce history, Mr. Engineer.

i take it from that that you have not read the other thread
shame on you ...

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 16 2007, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 17 2007, 01:36 AM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 16 2007, 07:31 PM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

Now that's irony! laugh.gif

What's ironic about it?

There are 100's of parts in an engine.

Only 2 were found.

That does not constitute an engine.

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 16 2007, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 07:42 PM)
i take it from that that you have not read the other thread
shame on you ...

Fill me in. What are you talking about?

Posted by: Lyte Trip Mar 16 2007, 08:46 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 17 2007, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 17 2007, 02:31 AM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

the "ONE" engine that was found (a type unkown) has never been identified ...

Tell us more about are Rolls Royce history, Mr. Engineer.

Does this sentence make sense?

Are? (bolded no less?)


Anway.....it is a rotor.

Not an engine.

Posted by: -Raven- Mar 16 2007, 08:48 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 16 2007, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 17 2007, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 17 2007, 02:31 AM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

the "ONE" engine that was found (a type unkown) has never been identified ...

Tell us more about are Rolls Royce history, Mr. Engineer.

Does this sentence make sense?

Are? (bolded no less?)


Anway.....it is a rotor.

Not an engine.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

user posted image

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 16 2007, 08:50 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 17 2007, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 17 2007, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 17 2007, 02:31 AM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

the "ONE" engine that was found (a type unkown) has never been identified ...

Tell us more about are Rolls Royce history, Mr. Engineer.

Does this sentence make sense?

Are? (bolded no less?)


Anway.....it is a rotor.

Not an engine.

you are very close to the answer

in fact you are only one step away ...

Posted by: Gezzer Mar 16 2007, 08:53 PM
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 17 2007, 02:48 AM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 16 2007, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE (-Raven- @ Mar 17 2007, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE (Gezzer @ Mar 16 2007, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 17 2007, 02:31 AM)
It sure wasn't an engine!

It was merely a part of an unidentified engine.

the "ONE" engine that was found (a type unkown) has never been identified ...

Tell us more about are Rolls Royce history, Mr. Engineer.

Does this sentence make sense?

Are? (bolded no less?)


Anway.....it is a rotor.

Not an engine.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

user posted image

where is the other one
1+1 = 2 (RB211 engines)

keep chasing a phantom if you will
i only look at evidence not pretty pictures ...


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)