Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
Have you seen any of CIT's videos, PFT's videos, loose change or Zeitgeist?

Yes, I have seen them all with the exception of the most recent PFT videos.

Hm. How can you not find all those north of citgo gas station witnesses persuasive?

Persuasive about what, that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon as many of them claimed they did?

I felt that CIT made it clear that they could have easily been fooled into -thinking- that the plane actually hit the building, without it actually being the case. Most importantly, the North of the Citgo flight path precludes the possibility that the plane could have hit the buliding.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Regardless of that, the question that I answered was related specifically to Lloyde's taxi and whether or not it was impacted by a light pole. In the complete absence of a credible alternative sequence of events, the evidence at hand seems to support Lloyde's testimony.

The issue is that many people, including myself, believe that CIT and PFT's work is quite credible. Similarly, many people, including myself, believe that Lloyd's testimony has been even further put into doubt by further testimony that he has made. The issue then becomes, why do we see things differently.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Other than what you perceive as contradictions with the "official story", do you have any credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events where Lloyde England's testimony is an elaborate ruse?

I have found CIT and PFT's work to offer very good evidence that Lloyd's testimony concerning the light pole was false.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
Or how about PFT's discussion on how it would have been impossible to pull out of the dive the plane would have had to have made in order to show up low and level as seen by the 5 frame video?

What about the discussion? Exactly what makes PFT an authority on anything, especially now that they've been caught misrepresenting the FDR data (by one of their own members) actively debunking them?

Can you point out where this occurred? As you may know, I was banned from PFT up until today, so I haven't exactly been keeping track of things over there.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Is your understanding of the components of discussion sufficient enough that you'd be able to detect if they were pulling your leg?

I believe I understand enough to know that they're right on the important points.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Speaking of the video, I believe I recall the blob in it going backwards sometime after the 5 frames.

Ok.

I wish I knew where I'd seen that. If I find it again, I'll let you know.

Originally posted by discombobulator
And why do you suppose that the video has September 12 stamped on it?

Because the time had been set incorrectly?

Why do you think no mention was made of this allegedly incorrect time stamp? Surely you realize that the September 12 time stamp casts doubt on the authenticty of the recorded event?

Originally posted by discombobulator
How do you suppose Lloyde England's cab was damaged?

All someone had to do was make a hole through the windshield; for all I know, a bullet could have done it, but if not, simply a somewhat larger object would have been needed.

The whole light pole issue has been discussed at length over at CIT's forum; I started a thread on the subject over there, in fact. Here it is:


Lloyd's light pole issue

reply to post by Pilgrum

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by scott3x

 

Scuse me for just dropping in again

Feel free to drop in anytime, laugh :-).

Originally posted by Pilgrum
but I too have viewed most of the presentations, even the longer ones.

Now if CIT had any prior credibility in my eyes they totally lost it with the G force calcs

Those calculations were done by PFT, not CIT. I found them to be quite persuasive. Why did you find them uncredible?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
and in light of the most recent findings I expect there'd have to be some frantic re-editing going on right about now.

I'd like to see these recent findings; do you have a link?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Lloyd's 'virtual confession' is another point that irks me. I can't find where he confesses to anything other than his cab being hit by a pole or part of a pole.

Oh, not outright, no. Did you see CIT's Lloyd England: The Eye of the Storm though? Personally, I found a few statements that he made there to be quite interesting.

For instance, this dialogue with CIT, starting at 34:32..

Shirley Hughes (Lloyd’s wife): The FBI thought that he had been killed, but I told him he was alive, so that's when they came here and talked to him.

Now tell me, why would the FBI allegedly think that he had been killed?

In any case, continuing:

Craig Ranke: And when was that?

Shirley Hughes: The next day.

Craig Ranke: The very next day? I think that's weird too, why did they think he was dead if there was no body?

Shirley Hughes: They say somebody towed him away.

CIT 2 (Aldo Marquis?): A lot of stories, a lot of stories.

Craig Ranke: They just took away the body huh?

Shirley Hughes: Yeah, and left the car

Do you believe Lloyd's wife? Do you honestly think that the FBI would have told her that they had towed Lloyd's body away?

In any case, continuing:

Lloyd: You know,
(laughter)

Lloyd: if I wasn't involved, and I had to go by the evidence that was shown me. And And I felt that this bridge was where it happened, I'd be confused too.

Perhaps he's subtly admitting here that he knows that his story makes no sense?

Shirley Hughes: You take a tour through the pentagon, and they tell you, they bring it up, "yes, that was the cab driver that was injured".
CIT 2: Injured, were you injured?
Shirley Hughes: No.
CIT 2: There you go.
Lloyd: That's the story.

2 ways of looking at this:
1- Government officials made up a story about Lloyd being injured.
2- Lloyd and his wife made up a story that the officials had said he was injured.

Which one do you prefer?

Continuing:

Craig Ranke: That's why I asked you that.

Lloyd: One thing about it you gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it, you- eventually it's going to come to me. And when it comes to me, it's going to be so big I can't do nothing about it. So it has to be stopped in the beginning when it's small.

CIT 2: Mmhm.

Lloyd: You see to keep it from spreading.

Seems to me like he may well be saying that he has to keep the truth from spreading, because, like he says, "when it comes to me, it's going to be so big I can't do nothing about it".

Continuing:

CIT 2: Oh absolutely, yeah, to keep it from getting this far to where we're talking..

Craig Ranke: Yeah, but if there was a lie, we need to expose it.

Lloyd: That's right.

Craig Ranke: And that's.. and we, if they did a lie to do what they're doing now, the problem is 9/11 isn't over and done with, 9/11 is permanent global war, permanent death for people every day right now, dying. Innocent people, innocent children...
CIT 2: 9/11 was an event was that a lot of people recognize as this big, 'now we have a war on terror', now we have, you know, but 9/11 started this.. it's not the end of it.

Notice how Lloyd and his wife say nothing to counter CIT's statements. Continuing:

Craig Ranke: Well we found out that that it didn't hit the Pentagon and just kept on going.

Shirley Hughes: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: Yeah what?

Shirley Hughes: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: Yeah what?

Shirley Hughes: What you said!

Craig Ranke: What did I say?

Shirley Hughes: I better go fix dinner so he can... if you're gonna...

Craig Ranke: You know something. Your wife, she's smart, she knows something! So let's... go!

Lloyd: Ok
[They then go off to check out Lloyd's cab]

Don't you think it sounds like Lloyd's wife may know that the official story is just a story?


Then there's this exchange with Craig Ranke, starting at 40:10:

Lloyd: No I wasn't supposed to be involved in this. This is too big for me man this is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening, I'm a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff.

CIT: But you said. Lloyd, what do you mean?

Lloyd: Well I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I don't have nothing.

CIT: So your point that these people that have all the money..

Lloyd: This is their thing.

CIT: This is their thang.

LLoyd: This is for them.

CIT: Meaning they're doing it for their own reasons.

Lloyd: That's right. I'm not supposed to be in it.

CIT: But they used you, right?

Lloyd: I'm in it.

CIT: You're in it.

Lloyd: Yeah, we came across, across the highway together.

CIT: You and their event.

Lloyd: That's right.

CIT: But they must have planned that.

Lloyd: It was planned.

CIT: They meant for you to be there didn't they?

Lloyd: No. They didn't mean for me to be there.

Lloyd: You know what history is? Just what I said you gotta understand what you are saying. History is his story.

CIT: Absolutely.

Lloyd: It's not the truth, it's his story! It has nothing to do with the truth, it's his story!

History is full of tall tales that have little to do with the truth. Lloyd England is clearly aware of this. Are you?

For most of the 'interview' he's just playing along as he knows the CIT people and what they're about

I can easily imagine that he knows what CIT's about; I don't think you do, though. I believe they're about ferreting out the truth.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
I felt that CIT made it clear that they could have easily been fooled into -thinking- that the plane actually hit the building, without it actually being the case.

Given your statement, I feel that it's pretty clear that CIT can easily fool you into believing whatever they want you to believe.

If you're somehow able to get over the seemingly insurmountable hurdle in that there is precisely no (read ZERO) evidence that a flyover occurred at the Pentagon, your next major feat is going to be explaining how the magic mushroom jet just vanished from view, poof, gone, just like that.

It is wishful thinking to just believe that everyone ducked, or looked away at the moment of impact. Furthermore you are in denial of the many witnesses who observed the plane from a distance and did not report it continuing on past the Pentagon.

Most importantly, the North of the Citgo flight path precludes the possibility that the plane could have hit the buliding.

Good grief. I'll let tezza handle this one.

The issue is that many people, including myself, believe that CIT and PFT's work is quite credible.

You're right, that is an issue.

I have found CIT and PFT's work to offer very good evidence that Lloyd's testimony concerning the light pole was false.

You keep dodging the question. I ask you again, what evidence do you believe exists that supports an alternative sequence of events. We can argue all day about how you think Lloyde said this proves that, but I'm not interested in that. I want you to show me a single piece of evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events that puts Lloyde's smashed cab and a broken lightpole in the middle of the road.

How did that happen?

Can you point out where this occurred? As you may know, I was banned from PFT up until today, so I haven't exactly been keeping track of things over there.

There are two active threads in this forum concerning the FDR data and PFT's ridiculous assertion regarding the cockpit door.

Why do you think no mention was made of this allegedly incorrect time stamp? Surely you realize that the September 12 time stamp casts doubt on the authenticty of the recorded event?

Having had experience working with security cameras and closed circuit television I have seen numerous instances where the date and time have been set incorrectly. This is hardly earth shattering.

All someone had to do was make a hole through the windshield; for all I know, a bullet could have done it, but if not, simply a somewhat larger object would have been needed.

And when did this happen, before or after the impact? Was it a bullet or wasn't it, you don't seem very sure? What smashed the dashboard? What broke the front passenger seat? What ripped the the rear seating away from the backrest? How did the broken pole end up in the middle of the road and when did it get there?

If Lloyde's testimony is a fabrication, do you have any credible evidence to support any of the answers you give to the questions above?

Speculation is not evidence.

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by scott3x

 

Now if CIT had any prior credibility in my eyes they totally lost it with the G force calcs and in light of the most recent findings I expect there'd have to be some frantic re-editing going on right about now.

CIT never goes back and corrects their work.

There are several misrepresentations of Joel Sucherman's testimony in addition to an egregious error made whilst demonstrating where the incoming airliner crossed Route 27, all of which Craig has since admitted to but simply couldn't care about.

I'm not up on whether or not he has made the mistakes that you mention. However, regardless of whether he did or didn't make those mistakes, I sincerely doubt that it changes the most important facts, namely that the vast majority of the witnesses on record who were in a good position to tell place the plane on the North of Citgo flight path.

Originally posted by scott3x
2 ways of looking at this:
1- Government officials made up a story about Lloyd being injured.
2- Lloyd and his wife made up a story that the officials had said he was injured.

Which one do you prefer?

And this is why truther logic fails every single time. You fail to consider possibilities that don't fit your pre-conceived delusions and then create these false little scenarios to avoid presenting evidence supporting the "real" sequence of events.

Are these really the only possibilities that occur to you? What about the possibility neither party is lying and that there was simply confusion over the issue or the facts were misreported in all of the chaos?

Originally posted by scott3x

I'm not up on whether or not he has made the mistakes that you mention.

Really, I can't say that I am surprised. It seems that I know more about CITs claims than you do, yet here you are trying to give me a lesson.

However, regardless of whether he did or didn't make those mistakes, I sincerely doubt that it changes the most important facts, namely that the vast majority of the witnesses on record who were in a good position to tell place the plane on the North of Citgo flight path.

It seems that they were in a good position to observe whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon, and that's exactly what they reported.

Sean Boger stated that he stood and watched the plane fully enter the Pentagon and then explode before dropping to the ground. He describes hear the metal scraping it's way through the building.

How do you reconcile that without throwing one of your own witnesses under the bus or crapping on about some mind control program garbage?

[edit on 11-12-2009 by discombobulator]

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
I felt that CIT made it clear that they could have easily been fooled into -thinking- that the plane actually hit the building, without it actually being the case.

Given your statement, I feel that it's pretty clear that CIT can easily fool you into believing whatever they want you to believe.

I don't see what brings you to that conclusion. Have you heard or do you remember their arguments on how people could have been fooled into believing that the plane crashed into the pentagon?

Originally posted by discombobulator
If you're somehow able to get over the seemingly insurmountable hurdle in that there is precisely no (read ZERO) evidence that a flyover occurred at the Pentagon,

There is actually a flyover witness on record, and there may well be more as well. But the strongest evidence is the simple fact that if the plane took the north of citgo approach, it simply couldn't have hit the pentagon and produced the damage that was recorded there.

Originally posted by discombobulator
your next major feat is going to be explaining how the magic mushroom jet just vanished from view, poof, gone, just like that.

As the flyover witness makes clear, it did no such thing.

Originally posted by discombobulator
It is wishful thinking to just believe that everyone ducked, or looked away at the moment of impact.

At the time that the plane began its flyover, the huge fireball was detonated; people would naturally be quite galvanized by the fireball and its natural to assume that they wouldn't be looking to see if the plane had continued on, assuming they would even be able to see it considering the brightness of the fireball. I think it's worth noting that the only flyover witness on record may well have seen it precisely because he was -not- in a position to see the fireball, allowing him to see the plane fly away from the pentagon. He was persuaded that it was actually a -second- plane, but those who are aware of the facts know that there was only one plane that was in the vicinity at the time; the plane that allegedly crashed into the pentagon.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Furthermore you are in denial of the many witnesses who observed the plane from a distance and did not report it continuing on past the Pentagon.

I'm not in denial; I've already mentioned how such witnesses could have been fooled.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
Most importantly, the North of the Citgo flight path precludes the possibility that the plane could have hit the buliding.

Good grief. I'll let tezza handle this one.

I must admit I'm curious what you're 'good griefing' about...

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
The issue is that many people, including myself, believe that CIT and PFT's work is quite credible.

You're right, that is an issue.

Indeed.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
I have found CIT and PFT's work to offer very good evidence that Lloyd's testimony concerning the light pole was false.

You keep dodging the question. I ask you again, what evidence do you believe exists that supports an alternative sequence of events.

I'm not dodging the question, I'm answering it.

Originally posted by discombobulator
We can argue all day about how you think Lloyde said this proves that, but I'm not interested in that.

Why is that?

Originally posted by discombobulator
I want you to show me a single piece of evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events that puts Lloyde's smashed cab and a broken lightpole in the middle of the road.

How did that happen?

I don't profess to know exactly how it happened, but here's a plausible theory; someone cuts the light poles down the day before, and puts a bullet through Lloyd's cab. Not really that hard to come up with an alternative theory.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
Can you point out where this occurred? As you may know, I was banned from PFT up until today, so I haven't exactly been keeping track of things over there

There are two active threads in this forum concerning the FDR data and PFT's ridiculous assertion regarding the cockpit door.

Ah, the issue is here then. I thought it was over at PFT.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
Why do you think no mention was made of this allegedly incorrect time stamp? Surely you realize that the September 12 time stamp casts doubt on the authenticty of the recorded event?

Having had experience working with security cameras and closed circuit television I have seen numerous instances where the date and time have been set incorrectly. This is hardly earth shattering.

This was a large event. Don't you think there should have been some mention of why the time stamp was wrong? Furthermore, why do you believe that the pentagon initially failed to verify the authenticity of the 5 frame video?

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
All someone had to do was make a hole through the windshield; for all I know, a bullet could have done it, but if not, simply a somewhat larger object would have been needed.

And when did this happen, before or after the impact?

How should I know? The only thing that's certain is that it had to have been done before the cameras started snapping pics.

reply to post by scott3x


For the G-calcs, I did my own rough version which produced results near an order of magnitude less than what was being suggested and in line with Ryan Mackie's (the real RM) figures.

The new evidence I refer to is being extensively discussed in the 'new FDR decode' thread and is centred on the previously unknown additional 4 seconds of data recorded by the FDR which was extracted by open source software written by Warren Stutt. At the plane's last recorded speed of 484 knots, it represents near a half mile of further flight and a much lower final altitude reading making the PFT G calcs even more outrageous than before. The last recorded radio altimeter reading is just 4' for example. Pressure altimeter reads somewhat higher than that but much lower than the earlier final altitude that was being used for estimating G's produced in pulling up.

As for Lloyd being presumed a fatality, well one look at that cab and I'd initially think the same thing. It's actually a miracle he wasn't hurt (well physically at least as I believe he'd be in considerable shock after it).

He (Lloyd) seems to have retained his sense of humor and I sensed some subtle application of it during that 'interview'.

'When it gets back to me it's gonna be big'
Look who it is that actually got back to him

He injected a red herring with the location of the cab as well.




[edit on 11/12/2009 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
All someone had to do was make a hole through the windshield; for all I know, a bullet could have done it, but if not, simply a somewhat larger object would have been needed.

Was it a bullet or wasn't it, you don't seem very sure?

I'm not. You asked for an alternative theory, I gave you one. Just because I'm not sure of every single detail doesn't mean that it isn't far more plausible then the official story's theory.

Originally posted by discombobulator
What smashed the dashboard? What broke the front passenger seat?

The same bullet? I'm not a ballistic expert, so I'm not sure if my theory is the most plausible, but again, given all the witnesses who place the plane on the north of the citgo gas station, it's immensely unlikely that the plane could have knocked over the light pole to go begin with, so any theory that accounts for the windshield being broken without the aid of a plane dropped light pole has a high likelihood of being more plausible.

Originally posted by discombobulator
What ripped the rear seating away from the backrest?

Same bullet perhaps? In regards to the rear seating, as you may know, CIT made it clear that there's no way that the large part of the light pole could have been impaled there.

Originally posted by discombobulator
How did the broken pole end up in the middle of the road and when did it get there?

Both very good questions. I imagine one or 2 people carried it there. The only thing that's certain is that they had to have done it before the camera started snapping pictures. By the way, do you know -who- was taking those photo op pictures?

Originally posted by discombobulator
If Lloyde's testimony is a fabrication, do you have any credible evidence to support any of the answers you give to the questions above?

The most credible or at the very least, easiest to understand evidence are the witnesses who place the plane on the north side of the citgo gas station in its final approach. It's a lot easier to cut a few light poles, break a windshield, and have some taxi cab driver make up a tall tale then it is to get all these witnesses that CIT found to independently corroborate each other as to the plane's flight path.

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
2 ways of looking at this:
1- Government officials made up a story about Lloyd being injured.
2- Lloyd and his wife made up a story that the officials had said he was injured.

Which one do you prefer?

And this is why truther logic fails every single time. You fail to consider possibilities that don't fit your pre-conceived delusions

discombobulator, I've spent a lot of time defending official story supporters against allegations like the one you're now making. I've never called anything you believe a delusion, because I know that doing so would only inflame this debate and very likely lead to a very unproductive type of discussion. Is this what you're trying to accomplish?

If you think that there are other possibilities, by all means, name them. It's easy to criticize, it's much harder to come up with productive input.

Originally posted by discombobulator
and then create these false little scenarios to avoid presenting evidence supporting the "real" sequence of events.

You have shown no evidence that my scenarios are necessarily false.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Are these really the only possibilities that occur to you?

Yes, they were.

Originally posted by discombobulator
What about the possibility neither party is lying and that there was simply confusion over the issue

Who do you believe was confused? The FBI or Lloyd and his wife?

Originally posted by discombobulator
or the facts were misreported in all of the chaos?

Lloyd and his wife were doing the reporting. This is why you must choose: either Lloyd and his wife were "confused", or the FBI was. So, which one do you choose?

Originally posted by scott3x

Was it a bullet or wasn't it, you don't seem very sure?

I'm not. You asked for an alternative theory, I gave you one.

No, I didn't, I asked you for something that you've so far proven incapable of providing - evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events.

What you are doing is just making crap up. Anyone can do that... here, watch -

1) Lloyde's cab was presmashed with light post embedded and rolled out of a moving trailer, KITT style

2) The fabrication was carried out in broad daylight and ninjas stealthily executed all onlookers

3) Direct Energy Weapons actually caused the Pentagon explosion but one burst missed and knocked over the light poles

Now, you've done a good job of derailing by droning on and on about your group delusion with CIT, but let's get back to the heart of the matter and what compelled me to post on this thread.

Show me the evidence that supports the alternative sequence of events. Don't give me theories, don't give me what went on in your mind during your latest bong hit, show me the evidence.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by discombobulator
Are these really the only possibilities that occur to you?

Yes, they were.

Ultima1, is that you?

[edit on 11-12-2009 by discombobulator]

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
I'm not up on whether or not he has made the mistakes that you mention.

Really, I can't say that I am surprised. It seems that I know more about CITs claims than you do, yet here you are trying to give me a lesson.

You have only brought up one particular issue. There are many others, and I'm getting into those as well. Furthermore, I'm not trying to compete to see who knows more about CIT, I'm trying to understand why we disagree. So I'm telling you what I believe, and I'm telling you why. It seems that for the most part, you're doing the same.

Originally posted by discombobulator
However, regardless of whether he did or didn't make those mistakes, I sincerely doubt that it changes the most important facts, namely that the vast majority of the witnesses on record who were in a good position to tell place the plane on the North of Citgo flight path.

It seems that they were in a good position to observe whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon, and that's exactly what they reported.

I'm glad that you qualified your statement with seems, because from what I have heard from both CIT and PFT, the fireball would have made it nearly if not impossible to see the plane continue initially. After that, all eyes that saw the explosion would probably be remain glued to it.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Sean Boger stated that he stood and watched the plane fully enter the Pentagon and then explode before dropping to the ground. He describes hear[ing] the metal scraping it's way through the building.

How do you reconcile that without throwing one of your own witnesses under the bus or crapping on about some mind control program garbage?

No need to use such language. Sean Boger isn't one of the witnesses that I've studied in depth. Others here may be able to answer these points of yours though.

reply to post by Pilgrum

Originally posted by Pilgrum
For the G-calcs, I did my own rough version which produced results near an order of magnitude less than what was being suggested and in line with Ryan Mackie's (the real RM) figures.

The new evidence I refer to is being extensively discussed in the 'new FDR decode' thread and is centred on the previously unknown additional 4 seconds of data recorded by the FDR which was extracted by open source software written by Warren Stutt.

Ah, ok. I think I'll leave that discussion to the FDR decode thread, it's certainly not my area of expertise.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
As for Lloyd being presumed a fatality, well one look at that cab and I'd initially think the same thing. It's actually a miracle he wasn't hurt (well physically at least as I believe he'd be in considerable shock after it).

Assuming that the light pole actually -did- spear his cab, you may well be right. Ofcourse, I'd argue that all the evidence suggests that no plane knocked down the light pole that was photographed near Lloyd's car, but that it was a staged event, which would mean that it's no surprise that he was unhurt.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
He (Lloyd) seems to have retained his sense of humor and I sensed some subtle application of it during that 'interview'.

I certainly agree that Lloyd has a sense of humour, but this doesn't mean that he played no part in a conspiracy to deceive the american people as to what truly happened at the pentagon.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
'When it gets back to me it's gonna be big'
Look who it is that actually got back to him

CIT you mean?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
He injected a red herring with the location of the cab as well.

What do you mean by this?

Originally posted by scott3x
I'm glad that you qualified your statement with seems, because from what I have heard from both CIT and PFT, the fireball would have made it nearly if not impossible to see the plane continue initially. After that, all eyes that saw the explosion would probably be remain glued to it.

Perhaps you missed the sequence of events as he described it:

1) Plane hits Pentagon
2) Plane fully enters Pentagon
3) There is an explosion

Sean Boger isn't one of the witnesses that I've studied in depth.

What a surprise.

Originally posted by scott3x


I do not know what else you expect. You are accusing me of misrepresenting someone else. What is it I did?

Between K and myself it was repeated, quoted, and linked to more than once. You obviously have a little thing for MM because you are just plane making this part up. You already took something of truly little import to the thread and stretched it out well past necessity. Not only was it reiterated exactly where, when, and how MM lied but I believe it was even repeated how many times you had to tell him he was wrong. You go on to admit that many people, including you, feel he tried to mislead. Got it. Not sure what you are arguing about then but now you have left honesty in the dust or else you are severely 'mistaken.' In either case it would seem you are not fit to have this conversation with anyone. The very fact that you claim to have asked for it and were never supplied it shows you are just looking to carry on this argument for no reason. You already admitted over and over again that he was 'mistaken' so you know exactly what it was he was deceptive about. You are going on ignore for the simple fact that this is the stupidest discussion I have ever been sucked into and it is apparently all you care about lately. I am not here to run my life around mm lying or k calling him on it. You have fun.

Originally posted by jthomas


I already know you believe in "stories." But who cares?

I did not ask if you cared. It is your official story. You are the one that believes it.

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by discombobulator
Was it a bullet or wasn't it, you don't seem very sure?

I'm not. You asked for an alternative theory, I gave you one.

No, I didn't..

Yes, you did. You stated:

Originally posted by discombobulator
How do you suppose Lloyde England's cab was damaged?

Originally posted by discombobulator
I asked you for something that you've so far proven incapable of providing - evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events.

I've already mentioned the strongest evidence multiple times; the independently corroborating north of the citgo gas station witnesses.

Originally posted by discombobulator
What you are doing is just making crap up.

Again, disc, are you simply trying to inflame the conversation? I'm answering your questions as best as I'm able. If you don't like my answers, why do you keep on asking me questions?

Originally posted by discombobulator
Anyone can do that... here, watch -

1) Lloyde's cab was presmashed with light post embedded and rolled out of a moving trailer, KITT style

Why go to so much trouble? The only people near him were the government spooks, who remain unidentified, who most likely staged the event themselves.

Originally posted by discombobulator
2) The fabrication was carried out in broad daylight and ninjas stealthily executed all onlookers

What onlookers? The road was closed down, apparently by the aforementioned government spooks. The closest shots that were taken by onlookers were a good distance away.

Originally posted by discombobulator
3) Direct Energy Weapons actually caused the Pentagon explosion but one burst missed and knocked over the light poles

No evidence for Direct Energy Weapons has ever been found to my knowledge. You saying you have found such evidence?

Originally posted by discombobulator
Now, you've done a good job of derailing by droning on and on about your group delusion with CIT,

There you go with the 'delusion' bit again. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wasting my time with you...

Originally posted by discombobulator
but let's get back to the heart of the matter and what compelled me to post on this thread.

We've covered this ground before...

Originally posted by discombobulator
Show me the evidence that supports the alternative sequence of events. Don't give me theories, don't give me what went on in your mind during your latest bong hit, show me the evidence.

I've done so. Now would you:
1- quit insulting me by stating that I have "delusions" instead of simply saying that you think I'm mistaken on something
2- quit making up stories about me (bong hit)

[edit on 11-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator
Ultima1, is that you?

No, I'm not Ultima1.