IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The PentaCon

HyJinX
post Feb 22 2007, 07:35 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 656



QUOTE (Merc @ Feb 22 2007, 03:50 PM)
Thanks guys.

Remember, this is only the smoking gun version.

The Researcher's Edition will have more witnesses, more research, and more killer 3-d from Pier.

Hello Merc...Hello all....

I just saw the video and I have a critical oposition.

You start the film off with six points to help the credibility of the film...one of them being the absolute credibility of the eye-witness accounts....correct? Each of the eye-witnesses...especially the one that worked at the Citgo say the plane hit the building...but you say it didn't. So am I to believe that even you don't find these witnesses credible? You claim the plane did not hit the pentagon...correct. So if you don't even believe the eye-witnesses...why are they credible? If you don't believe what they saw...why should I believe one part of their story and not another part of their story.

Sorry...but if you want me to trust them and you...you need to show faith in what they saw as well.

Not a good film. Not credible....and you even debunk your own witnesses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HyJinX
post Feb 22 2007, 07:37 PM
Post #2





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 656



QUOTE (Merc @ Feb 22 2007, 06:25 PM)
BTW Beached thanks brother.

I hope everyone see's the gravity of this.

People should be rejoicing. But should be scared.

I almost come to the point of wanting to cry.

I hope you see the seriousness of the situation here guys.

I posted this same question to you in the Pentagon forum...

Hello Merc...Hello all....

I just saw the video and I have a critical oposition.

You start the film off with six points to help the credibility of the film...one of them being the absolute credibility of the eye-witness accounts....correct? Each of the eye-witnesses...especially the one that worked at the Citgo say the plane hit the building...but you say it didn't. So am I to believe that even you don't find these witnesses credible? You claim the plane did not hit the pentagon...correct. So if you don't even believe the eye-witnesses...why are they credible? If you don't believe what they saw...why should I believe one part of their story and not another part of their story.

Sorry...but if you want me to trust them and you...you need to show faith in what they saw as well.

Not a good film. Not credible....and you even debunk your own witnesses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Feb 22 2007, 07:46 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



If the plane came in from the north, then the damage to the building is inconsistent with that. If it flew over the building and a fireball erupted at the same time, one could easily be decieved. This does not "debunk" their testimony.

HyJinX, I see this is your second post and already you're using the work "debunk". That's a the govt loyalist site term which is starting to loose its sting. Anything writen by the govt loyalist site which is critical of our research is somehow automatially labelled as a "debunk". rolleyes.gif

Now please, be polite, and intorduce yourself in the "welcome" forum. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HyJinX
post Feb 22 2007, 07:49 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 656



QUOTE (Beached @ Feb 22 2007, 06:46 PM)
If the plane came in from the north, then the damage to the building is inconsistent with that. If it flew over the building and a fireball erupted at the same time, one could easily be decieved. This does not "debunk" their testimony.

HyJinX, I see this is your second post and already you're using the work "debunk". That's a the govt loyalist site term which is starting to loose its sting. Anything writen by the govt loyalist site which is critical of our research is somehow automatially labelled as a "debunk". rolleyes.gif

Now please, be polite, and intorduce yourself in the "welcome" forum. smile.gif

Sorry, but I don't see any rule that states I must introduce myself.

My introduction is the posts I placed within the two forums. I will use the term debunk because this film doesn't lend credibility to the eye-witness from the very film makers. Sorry..but that's the truth.

If they don't believe thier own eye-witnesses...either do I.

It's not a credible fim. Sorry....but that's how I feel....and I don't think the movement will give it much attention because it's going to get ripped apart quickly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Feb 22 2007, 07:53 PM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



You're so friendly aren't you tongue.gif

"Ripped appart" by the govt loyalist site? I told you, those so-called "debunks" are really losing their sting. Adhere to the Randi methodology and you can "debunk" gravity! [laugh] Alas, more deception from the followers of the two bit magician! laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HyJinX
post Feb 22 2007, 07:55 PM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 656



QUOTE (Beached @ Feb 22 2007, 06:53 PM)
You're so friendly aren't you  tongue.gif

"Ripped appart" by the govt loyalist site? I told you, those so-called "debunks" are really losing their sting. Adhere to the Randi methodology and you can "debunk" gravity!  [laugh] Alas, more deception from the followers of the two bit magician!  laugh.gif

Thanks for explaning my concerns.

Let's face it...you're politcally motivated...not motivated by logic or common sense.

They DEBUNK their own film by asking us to believe one part of thier eye-witness testimony and not another part.

Sorry...the film is worthless.

By the way...I'm a staunch democrat who doesn't care for Bush or his administration...so your personal attacks are meaningless on me.

The film is crap. Period.

This post has been edited by HyJinX: Feb 22 2007, 08:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HeyLeroy
post Feb 22 2007, 08:03 PM
Post #7


Jerk-off Loyalist Turd


Group: Banned
Posts: 33
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 657



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Comments would be appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Feb 22 2007, 08:09 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



What the... !?$p@:&! Politics??? Where does politics enter in to this?? What does the fact that you're a democrat have to do with ANYTHING??

If the plane flew on the North Side of the CITGO station then it couldn't have hit the light poles - HyJinx, do you not see the impications of that?? This testimony confirms the FDR data that JDX and UnderTow have been analyzing - which puts the plane on this same trajectory (and is too high)

Anyway, I want to go back and watch the rest of this - so shut the @&#% up, newbie.

And no, there's nothing in the rules that say you have to introduce your self - that's just good manners - which you seem to entirely lack ... the way you suddenly appear the moment this film goes public and trash it tells me exactly who you are and what you're doing here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Feb 22 2007, 08:10 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Democrat / Republican makes no difference to me. Both parties are opposite sides of the same coin. Being stauchly anti-Bush or democrat has no bearing on the matter whatsover.

The only part of the testimony - i.e. that the plane hit the building is an easy mistake to make considering how fast everything happened. One could easily be decieved by the aformentioned scenario. However, everything else is consistent with the FDR. We know that since the aircraft came in from the north side there is no way the damage to the Pentagon could have been from the impact. We also know this from the FDR readout. Therefore, the assertion that the plane flew over the building and was masked by a fireball is a common-sense supposition! You're just a rabid skeptic incapacitated by tunnel vision.

This post has been edited by Beached: Feb 22 2007, 08:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HyJinX
post Feb 22 2007, 08:14 PM
Post #10





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 656



QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 22 2007, 07:09 PM)
What the... !?$p@:&! Politics??? Where does politics enter in to this?? What does the fact that you're a democrat have to do with ANYTHING??

If the plane flew on the North Side of the CITGO station then it couldn't have hit the light poles - HyJinx, do you not see the impications of that?? This testimony confirms the FDR data that JDX and UnderTow have been analyzing - which puts the plane on this same trajectory (and is too high)

Anyway, I want to go back and watch the rest of this - so shut the @&#% up, newbie.

And no, there's nothing in the rules that say you have to introduce your self - that's just good manners - which you seem to entirely lack ... the way you suddenly appear the moment this film goes public and trash it tells me exactly who you are and what you're doing here.

You swear at me and then tell me I have no manners...that's rich.

Sorry...you're wrong. The eye-witnesses are mistaken and I don't believe them because they all saw the plane hit the pentagon...but the filmmakers don't believe that part of their story.

It DEBUNKS itself.

That's the truth and you're the one without manners.

Enjoy your fantasy movie.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 22 2007, 08:15 PM
Post #11


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE
I just saw the video and I have a critical oposition.



Of course you do.

QUOTE
You start the film off with six points to help the credibility of the film...one of them being the absolute credibility of the eye-witness accounts....correct? Each of the eye-witnesses...especially the one that worked at the Citgo say the plane hit the building...but you say it didn't. So am I to believe that even you don't find these witnesses credible? You claim the plane did not hit the pentagon...correct. So if you don't even believe the eye-witnesses...why are they credible? If you don't believe what they saw...why should I believe one part of their story and not another part of their story.


They are credble because they were fooled like you.

They are just relaying their honest experience. I peronally think they saw more (I won't specify who). They are credible because they were there and they are proven to be there. Unlike everyone on that highway except Stephen McGraw, Lloyd England, Mike Walter, and Steve Riskus. I guess you could say Frank Probst as well, although there is nothing other than his account to prove he was walking on the sidewalk when the official flight path phantom plane came screaming in. But trust all of these accounts will be CLOSELY scruntinized as well. And not just by us.

QUOTE
Sorry...but if you want me to trust them and you...you need to show faith in what they saw as well.


Oh I do my friend. They saw a big jet on the north side. I have faith one of them saw it pull up.

But I also have faith in the fact that they didn't read the ASCE report and the researched the flight path and light pole damage path.

QUOTE
Not a good film. Not credible....and you even debunk your own witnesses.



You call yourselves critical thinkers?

Do you understand that the PLANE has to be on the SOUTH side to do all it was supposed to do?

Are you getting that? Or do I really need to break it down, HyJinx?

This post has been edited by Merc: Feb 22 2007, 08:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HyJinX
post Feb 22 2007, 08:16 PM
Post #12





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 656



QUOTE (Beached @ Feb 22 2007, 07:10 PM)
Democrat / Republican makes no difference to me. Both parties are opposite sides of the same coin. Being stauchly anti-Bush or democrat has no bearing on the matter whatsover.

The only part of the testimony - i.e. that the plane hit the building is an easy mistake to make considering how fast everything happened. One could easily be decieved by the aformentioned scenario. However, everything else is consistent with the FDR. We know that since the aircraft came in from the north side there is no way the damage to the Pentagon could have been from the impact. We also know this from the FDR readout. Therefore, the assertion that the plane flew over the building and was masked by a fireball is a common-sense supposition! You're just a rabid skeptic incapacitated by tunnel vision.

I disagree. The FDR actually shows the plane flying south of the Citgo. You're the one willing to believe amateur filmmakers motivated by greed and a need to be recognized.

The film DEBUNKS itself and the testimony of the eye-witnesses. Sorry you can't see that.

Go ahead and keep believing the bullcrap.

The film is worthless based on the actual filmmakers beliefs and what they want us to believe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 22 2007, 08:17 PM
Post #13


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (HeyLeroy @ Feb 23 2007, 12:03 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Comments would be appreciated.

An inaccurate representation of what happened.

Do you need me to elaborate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Feb 22 2007, 08:17 PM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (HyJinX @ Feb 22 2007, 11:37 PM)
Hello Merc...Hello all....

I just saw the video and I have a critical oposition.

You start the film off with six points to help the credibility of the film...one of them being the absolute credibility of the eye-witness accounts....correct? Each of the eye-witnesses...especially the one that worked at the Citgo say the plane hit the building...but you say it didn't. So am I to believe that even you don't find these witnesses credible? You claim the plane did not hit the pentagon...correct. So if you don't even believe the eye-witnesses...why are they credible? If you don't believe what they saw...why should I believe one part of their story and not another part of their story.

Sorry...but if you want me to trust them and you...you need to show faith in what they saw as well.

Not a good film. Not credible....and you even debunk your own witnesses.

Hi HyJinx,

welcome to Pilots for 911 Truth.


Maybe I can help you with your question.
The point you are not adressing is the point of credibility of the
official version released by the gouverment.

Noone claimed, that the witnesses are 100% correct in their report.
Additionally, whether or not they claim to have seen the plane hitting the Pentagon
is not the important point.

Important is, that they stated unerringly that the flight path was north of the Citgo station.

Important is, that the administration reported, whith physically evidence, that the plane
clipped 5 light poles.

When you combine that 2 statements, you have to recognize, that either the witnesses
or the administration is incorrect.

When you simulate all possibilitys of combining possible correct statements
e.g.
(flightpath was north/plane hit the pentagon)
(flightpath was north/plane flew over the pentagon)
(flightpath was north/plane landed at the heliport, passengers were evacuated
by aliens, plane was dragged in front of impact zone and blown up by 5 million china-crackers)

one thing stays the same: The flight path was north of the official reported flight path.

One could say, ok, the gouverment was maybe wrong whith its assumption of the flight path
being south of the citgo station. Thats a possibility. But I want to know, why the light poles were
struck then? Or weren't they???

not only assuming anymore: Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DemolitionCrew
post Feb 22 2007, 08:20 PM
Post #15


Vermontbound


Group: Newbie
Posts: 890
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 73



QUOTE (HyJinX @ Feb 22 2007, 06:55 PM)
QUOTE (Beached @ Feb 22 2007, 06:53 PM)
You're so friendly aren't you  tongue.gif

"Ripped appart" by the govt loyalist site? I told you, those so-called "debunks" are really losing their sting. Adhere to the Randi methodology and you can "debunk" gravity!  [laugh] Alas, more deception from the followers of the two bit magician!  laugh.gif

Thanks for explaning my concerns.

Let's face it...you're politcally motivated...not motivated by logic or common sense.

They DEBUNK their own film by asking us to believe one part of thier eye-witness testimony and not another part.

Sorry...the film is worthless.

By the way...I'm a staunch democrat who doesn't care for Bush or his administration...so your personal attacks are meaningless on me.

The film is crap. Period.

You get no kuddos for being a Bush hater or staunch Dem. If you are still trapped in the false political paradigm that's your tough luck! Me I am a recovering staunch Dem I will pray that you wake up and realize both sides are paid for.

As far as the movie, haven't watched it all the way through, but if you have a critique then there is a way to deliver it...its called tact. Also you are a newbie so you must realize, you can't come in knocking the doors down without expecting to receive massive backlash.

The people here have done tons of research and are not throwing around unfounded theories. If you care about finding out what happened on 9/11, we are interested in your thought. If you are a cointelpro shill with an agenda...find another board.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Feb 22 2007, 08:20 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (HyJinX @ Feb 23 2007, 09:14 AM)
...you're the one without manners.

Yeah, that's probably true, but you're the one who put me in into the lousy mood. Going back to watch the film -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HeyLeroy
post Feb 22 2007, 08:20 PM
Post #17


Jerk-off Loyalist Turd


Group: Banned
Posts: 33
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 657



Please!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HyJinX
post Feb 22 2007, 08:23 PM
Post #18





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 656



QUOTE (Merc @ Feb 22 2007, 07:15 PM)
QUOTE (HyJinX @ Feb 22 2007, 11:35 PM)
QUOTE (Merc @ Feb 22 2007, 03:50 PM)
Thanks guys.

Remember, this is only the smoking gun version.

The Researcher's Edition will have more witnesses, more research, and more killer 3-d from Pier.

Hello Merc...Hello all....

I just saw the video and I have a critical oposition.

You start the film off with six points to help the credibility of the film...one of them being the absolute credibility of the eye-witness accounts....correct? Each of the eye-witnesses...especially the one that worked at the Citgo say the plane hit the building...but you say it didn't. So am I to believe that even you don't find these witnesses credible? You claim the plane did not hit the pentagon...correct. So if you don't even believe the eye-witnesses...why are they credible? If you don't believe what they saw...why should I believe one part of their story and not another part of their story.

Sorry...but if you want me to trust them and you...you need to show faith in what they saw as well.

Not a good film. Not credible....and you even debunk your own witnesses.

QUOTE
I just saw the video and I have a critical oposition.



Of course you do.

QUOTE
You start the film off with six points to help the credibility of the film...one of them being the absolute credibility of the eye-witness accounts....correct? Each of the eye-witnesses...especially the one that worked at the Citgo say the plane hit the building...but you say it didn't. So am I to believe that even you don't find these witnesses credible? You claim the plane did not hit the pentagon...correct. So if you don't even believe the eye-witnesses...why are they credible? If you don't believe what they saw...why should I believe one part of their story and not another part of their story.


They are credble because they were fooled like you.

They are just relaying their honest experience. I peronally think they saw more (I won't specify who). They are credible because they were there and they are proven to be there. Unlike everyone on that highway except Stephen McGraw, Lloyd England, Mike Walter, and Steve Riskus. I guess you could say Frank Probst as well, although there is nothing other than his account to prove he was walking on the sidewalk when the official flight path phantom plane came screaming in. But trust all of these accounts will be CLOSELY scruntinized as well. And not just by us.

QUOTE
Sorry...but if you want me to trust them and you...you need to show faith in what they saw as well.


Oh I do my friend. They saw a big jet on the north side. I have faith one of them saw it pull up.

But I also have faith in the fact that they didn't read the ASCE report and the researched the flight path and light pole damage path.

QUOTE
Not a good film. Not credible....and you even debunk your own witnesses.



You call yourselves critical thinkers?

Do you understand that the PLANE has to be on the SOUTH side to do all it was supposed to do?

Are you getting that? Or do I really need to break it down, HyJinx?

Actually your first witness debunks your theory. He claims to see the plane flying over the south side of the of the Annex and the wing being slightly over the street. If you draw a straight line to where the location he's refering to...to the Pentagon...the line is actually south of the Citgo station and hits the Pentagon where to official account claims it hit. See the image here.

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=75482&page=2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Feb 22 2007, 08:24 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE
The FDR actually shows the plane flying south of the Citgo.


Ahem... the FDR shows the aircraft passing on the north side. Please come back after doing the appropriate research.

Good night.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HyJinX
post Feb 22 2007, 08:26 PM
Post #20





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-February 07
Member No.: 656



QUOTE (Beached @ Feb 22 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE
The FDR actually shows the plane flying south of the Citgo.


Ahem... the FDR shows the aircraft passing on the north side. Please come back after doing the appropriate research.

Good night.

Please confirm that with fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th August 2019 - 04:55 PM