ThePentaCON releases trailer

Totovader said:
If you weren't afraid to answer my question, it would immediately become obvious to you as well. (Assuming it already isn't.)

Did you try to look for alternative explanations of the witnesses claims? Did you bother to consider that your theory contradicts known facts? Did you look even beyond the witnesses?

So far your only answer in any direction of this is that everyone who disagrees with you is lying or paid off. This is unscientific- and does not account for the mountains of physical evidence which contradict your ridiculous claims.

These are just a few questions a true investigator wouldn't hesitate to think about if they were honestly interested in truth. Since you did not do these things- it's quite easy to dismiss your claims as unscientific, erroneous, and not based in fact.
Click to expand...

Lyte Trip said:
Ok Dr. toto.

I predict that you will feel otherwise after hearing the testimony.
Click to expand...

Did you just claim that your video would get me to no longer be a true investigator? Your video will cause me to disbelieve science, critical thought, and logic? I will no longer believe in matters of truth and reason?

This I've got to see...



If you were correct- however- you wouldn't be avoiding my question like the plague. You would have cheerfully answered it by now, instead of just dodging it with empty promises and irrational and contradictory claims.
 
Totovader said:
And how would you know they were wrong?

What would it take?

Science and physical evidence obviously doesn't do it for you- so what would? Other testimony?

You have a contradiction, Lyte- fine... but you're willfully choosing to dismiss the contradiction as that which contradicts your claim is lying, paid off, planted, etc- this is not only unscientific, but it's irrational. The difference between a conspiracist and a scientist could not be made any more clear for you.

To claim to be interested in science and logic- and then turn around and deny it is such a monumental contradiction that I am unable to comprehend how you think that "I don't want to debate" will satisfy it...
Click to expand...

The level of corroboration is so high that there is virtually no possibility they are wrong.

This quote from our script describes the reasons why this testimony is so particularly strong:

1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)

2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.

(They only have to recall what side of the building the plane flew)

3) The perfect vantage point.

(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on what side of the station the plane flew then the witnesses that were on the station’s property)

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.

(The reason for this will be apparent when the identities of the witnesses are revealed.)

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.

(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims as they are able to re-enact their experience for the camera)

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

Number 6 is an important one. Ask yourself where you were on 9/11. Virtually everyone remembers in detail where they were, what they did, and how they felt on that day. Now imagine you were on the CITGO station property just a few feet away from the plane with a perfect view of the Pentagon. Does it seem feasible that you could be completely mistaken as to what side of the station the plane flew? Regardless of how you answer that question none of the witnesses we spoke with believe there is a remote possibility they could be mistaken in this regard.
Click to expand...
 
Lyte Trip said:
I believe the citgo eyewitness accounts of the placement of the plane.
Click to expand...

Why? What makes you favour this part of the account instead of the part about the plane hit?

The details that they ALL relay happen to prove that the plane couldn't have toppled the light poles and damaged the building as outlined in the ASCE report.
Click to expand...

That's because you favour one part of their testimony, the part that contradicts countless other accounts.

When something does not corroborate with other people's testimonies, that is usually the part that is disregarded by investigators.

You on the other hand cling to the anomalous detail and disregard the corroborating evidence.

That is not critical thinking.
 
babazaroni said:
Lyte, do you believe the pentagon security video was faked?
Click to expand...

Most certainly.

It is apparant to the most remedial of video editors that frames have been removed.

Many of the dubious circumstances surrounding that video will be discussed in the "Researcher's Edition" of our film.
 
Pardalis said:
Why? What makes you favour this part of the account instead of the part about the plane hit?



That's because you favour one part of their testimony, the part that contradicts countless other accounts.

When something does not corroborate with other people's testimonies, that is usually the part that is disregarded by investigators.

You on the other hand cling to the anomalous detail and disregard the corroborating evidence.

That is not critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want.

I predict that even YOU will have this same opinion upon viewing this testimony.
 
Totovader said:
And how would you know they were wrong?

What would it take?

Science and physical evidence obviously doesn't do it for you- so what would? Other testimony?

You have a contradiction, Lyte- fine... but you're willfully choosing to dismiss the contradiction as that which contradicts your claim is lying, paid off, planted, etc- this is not only unscientific, but it's irrational. The difference between a conspiracist and a scientist could not be made any more clear for you.

To claim to be interested in science and logic- and then turn around and deny it is such a monumental contradiction that I am unable to comprehend how you think that "I don't want to debate" will satisfy it...
Click to expand...


Lyte Trip said:
The level of corroboration is so high that there is virtually no possibility they are wrong.

This quote from our script describes the reasons why this testimony is so particularly strong:
Click to expand...

My god...

How many times do I need to ask you to answer my question?

Their testimony (according to you) contradicts known scientific data, many other witnesses, and mountains of physical evidence.

So, how do you know what's right? And by knowing what is right- what possibilities did you exclude by methods of investigation?

I can only reword my question so many times. You will not be able to continue to ignore it and claim that you are scientific at the same time.

People do not vote on the truth. Getting one hundred people in a room and getting them to vote that the sky is bright purple will not make the sky bright purple. You know this because you immediately discount any witness which does not confirm your predetermined conclusion. So, it's obvious you're aware of the contradiction- what's not obvious is how you scientifically resolved it.

I mean- I'm sure we can all make some guesses as to how you resolved it, but I'd rather hear it from you...

Indicating that your theory is not falsifiable is certainly a step in the right direction. It shows that it's not scientific- that it is irrational, and not true.
 
Pardalis said:
Lyte, do you account the fact that memory can be distorted by time?
Click to expand...

Of course!

But here are the reasons why this testimony is so strong.

Perhaps you missed them in the above post:

1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)

2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.

(They only have to recall what side of the building the plane flew)

3) The perfect vantage point.

(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on what side of the station the plane flew then the witnesses that were on the station’s property)

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.

(The reason for this will be apparent when the identities of the witnesses are revealed.)

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.

(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims as they are able to re-enact their experience for the camera)

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

Number 6 is an important one. Ask yourself where you were on 9/11. Virtually everyone remembers in detail where they were, what they did, and how they felt on that day. Now imagine you were on the CITGO station property just a few feet away from the plane with a perfect view of the Pentagon. Does it seem feasible that you could be completely mistaken as to what side of the station the plane flew? Regardless of how you answer that question none of the witnesses we spoke with believe there is a remote possibility they could be mistaken in this regard.
Click to expand...
 
Lyte Trip said:
I believe the citgo eyewitness accounts of the placement of the plane.

So will any honest critical thinker.

The details that they ALL relay happen to prove that the plane couldn't have toppled the light poles and damaged the building as outlined in the ASCE report.

They were completely unaware of this fact and even reacted in disbelief when I told them.

I have this reaction on camera for the star witness.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, every one of your witnesses believes that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and you are using these witnesses to prove that it didn’t.

Equally so when you told them, they reacted with disbelief.

You honestly believe they were all fooled into believing a Plane in broad day light, in full view of every single person that just happened to be about at the time, hit the building.

You honestly believe that a plan so meretriciously worked out would rely on things that are so out of its control?

Do you honestly believe that people as so stupid they would fly a plane over a building, hoping it would fool everybody? Hoping that nobody actually had a camera or a recorder? Hoping that nobody grabbed the nearest news crew and say

`Hey I saw it fly over the building and guess what I captured it all on tape `

Game over, end of plan, months and months of planning out of the window, just because one Joe Public caught it all on camera. Down goes the USG, down goes the NWO, it all goes down the tubes because one guy caught it all on tape.

No Type they didn’t rely on this at all, because the plane did not fly over the building, it flew into it, killing everybody onboard it.
 
6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

Number 6 is an important one. Ask yourself where you were on 9/11. Virtually everyone remembers in detail where they were, what they did, and how they felt on that day. Now imagine you were on the CITGO station property just a few feet away from the plane with a perfect view of the Pentagon. Does it seem feasible that you could be completely mistaken as to what side of the station the plane flew? Regardless of how you answer that question none of the witnesses we spoke with believe there is a remote possibility they could be mistaken in this regard.
Click to expand...


So the citgo witness are right due to this but every other person who witnessed it is wrong?

ETA: AND they are wrong about it hitting the building?
 
Last edited:
Totovader said:
So, how do you know what's right? And by knowing what is right- what possibilities did you exclude by methods of investigation?
Click to expand...

Here are the reasons why the testimony we will present is so strong.

Perhaps you missed it in my post above.

1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)

2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.

(They only have to recall what side of the building the plane flew)

3) The perfect vantage point.

(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on what side of the station the plane flew then the witnesses that were on the station’s property)

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.

(The reason for this will be apparent when the identities of the witnesses are revealed.)

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.

(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims as they are able to re-enact their experience for the camera)

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

Number 6 is an important one. Ask yourself where you were on 9/11. Virtually everyone remembers in detail where they were, what they did, and how they felt on that day. Now imagine you were on the CITGO station property just a few feet away from the plane with a perfect view of the Pentagon. Does it seem feasible that you could be completely mistaken as to what side of the station the plane flew? Regardless of how you answer that question none of the witnesses we spoke with believe there is a remote possibility they could be mistaken in this regard.
Click to expand...
 
Redtail said:
So the citgo witness are right due to this but every other person who witnessed it is wrong?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed this one:

1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)
Click to expand...
 
Totovader said:
My god...

How many times do I need to ask you to answer my question?

Their testimony (according to you) contradicts known scientific data, many other witnesses, and mountains of physical evidence.

So, how do you know what's right? And by knowing what is right- what possibilities did you exclude by methods of investigation?

I can only reword my question so many times. You will not be able to continue to ignore it and claim that you are scientific at the same time.

People do not vote on the truth. Getting one hundred people in a room and getting them to vote that the sky is bright purple will not make the sky bright purple. You know this because you immediately discount any witness which does not confirm your predetermined conclusion. So, it's obvious you're aware of the contradiction- what's not obvious is how you scientifically resolved it.

I mean- I'm sure we can all make some guesses as to how you resolved it, but I'd rather hear it from you...

Indicating that your theory is not falsifiable is certainly a step in the right direction. It shows that it's not scientific- that it is irrational, and not true.
Click to expand...

Lyte Trip said:
Here are the reasons why the testimony we will present is so strong.

Perhaps you missed it in my post above.
Click to expand...

This- obviously- is not an answer to my question, it is- in point of fact- a red herring.

Please do not continue to dodge my question. If you're going to leave- leave, so we can all do the dance of victory and have our own barbecue. If you're going to stay, simply answer the question or give me a good reason as to why logic and scientific investigation should not apply to such an important event.
 
Hey toto.....

I have a question for you.

What's the difference between a strawman and a red herring?

I haven't been able to figure that one out.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Perhaps you missed this one:

[/b]
Click to expand...
we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence
Click to expand...

1. how many witnesses are in said body of evidence?

2. If they wouldn't forget what happened why did they and many others see the plane hit and not flyover?

3. Are you sending copies of the film to the witnesses to get feedback?
 
1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.
Click to expand...

All other eyewitnesses accounts who saw the plane hit the building also corroborate with eatchother AND they corroborate with the physical evidence.

2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean anything. Memory can be distorted over time.

3) The perfect vantage point.
Click to expand...

Perfect according to what, exactly? What is the perfect vantage point to see a plane coming in at full speed towards a low building?

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.
Click to expand...

And the other eyewitnesses, what makes them not credible?

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.
Click to expand...

Alot of the eywitnesses accounts that saw the plane hit the building were filmed on the spot, on 9/11.

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.
Click to expand...

The same goes for people who corroborate that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Not much there.
 
Lyte,

Why are you ignoring the mountain of physical evidence that supports the official story?

Why are you taking eyewitness testimony over physical evidence? Physical evidence > eyewitness testimony.
 
Lyte Trip said:
:D

Man you are quick with those debate tactic definitions!

Your skeptic vocabulary is second to none toto!

;)
Click to expand...

Logic is not a debate tactic, Lyte. Your appeal to flattery is not an adequate response to my question.

Now, please- answer the question.
 
Lyte Trip said:
They were all fooled into believing the plane hit the building.

None had to lie for our hypothesis to be correct.
Click to expand...
And how were they fooled? Why is it you are the only one in the world able to figure this out? Do you know that fact alone proves your claim false.
 
Hey toto.....

I have a question for you.

What's the difference between a strawman and a red herring?

I haven't been able to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

A straw man is an argument you debunk that is very easily debunkable and doesn't necessarily give an accurate representation of an opinion. By debunking that easy-to-debunk point, you conceivably debunk the whole argument, even though that's not the case.

A red herring is simply a lead being followed in an investigation that leads nowhere.

Come on Lyte, I have four Coronas and two shots of Captain Morgan in me, and I was able to figure it out.


Also, please present your evidence that the Doubletree footage was faked. And please don't say anything about it being "grainy". I'm looking for actual, credible evidence of fakery.
 
apathoid said:
Flying into the Penatgon and flying on the north side of the Citgo are NOT mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not but what IS mutually exclusive is flying on the north of the citgo while toppling the light poles and damaging the building as outlined in the ASCE report.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Hey toto.....

I have a question for you.

What's the difference between a strawman and a red herring?

I haven't been able to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

This- for example- would be a red herring.

For information on the rest- you can check google.


Now, can you please answer my question.
 
chippy said:
A straw man is an argument you debunk that is very easily debunkable and doesn't necessarily give an accurate representation of an opinion. By debunking that easy-to-debunk point, you conceivably debunk the whole argument, even though that's not the case.

A red herring is simply a lead being followed in an investigation that leads nowhere.

Come on Lyte, I have four Coronas and two shots of Captain Morgan in me, and I was able to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Ahhh got it.

Thanks!

So does that mean that a red herring can't be a strawman and vice versa?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Perhaps not but what IS mutually exclusive is flying on the north of the citgo while toppling the light poles and damaging the building as outlined in the ASCE report.
Click to expand...

But you claimed there were no contradictions...


Again, how do you resolve these contradictions? What evidence did your investigation rule out- and by what means?

Not that difficult of a question, is it?
 
Totovader said:
This- for example- would be a red herring.

For information on the rest- you can check google.


Now, can you please answer my question.
Click to expand...

I forgot it.

But I will most likely lose interest by the time you repost it again anyway so I suggest you don't bother!
:p
 
~enigma~ said:
And how were they fooled? Why is it you are the only one in the world able to figure this out? Do you know that fact alone proves your claim false.
Click to expand...

Yes, please answer that Lyte.

Could they just as well have been fooled to believe that they saw the plane come in from the North of the CITGO?
 
Totovader said:
But you claimed there were no contradictions...


Again, how do you resolve these contradictions? What evidence did your investigation rule out- and by what means?

Not that difficult of a question, is it?
Click to expand...

It sounds like it's on the right track and I will try to answer but you need to clarify.

What contradictions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom