View Full Version: New Explosive 20 Minute 9/11 Presentation!

Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > New Explosive 20 Minute 9/11 Presentation!

Pages: [1] 2 3

Title: New Explosive 20 Minute 9/11 Presentation!
Description: Courtesy of CIT.


Craig Ranke CIT - August 14, 2007 09:37 PM (GMT)
The details regarding Lloyd the cab driver have now been revealed in this 20 minute presentation.

This information is meant to be viewed after watching the testimony from the witnesses at the citgo station in The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version).


Without further ado.......CIT presents:

"The First Known Accomplice?"

user posted image

buddy - August 14, 2007 09:58 PM (GMT)
Ok, so why couldn't this be the case: if the pole was so long and bent, why couldn't one end poke through the windshield while the other end was on the pavement. Since it is curved it may not touch the hood of the car. And with one end on the pavement, it would be easier to lift the pole out, since you'd only have to lift one end. And if one end stayed on the pavement the whole time, then as you lifted the other end up, you wouldn't touch the hood but might even damage the windshield more towards the top.

Craig Ranke CIT - August 14, 2007 10:01 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (buddy @ Aug 14 2007, 09:58 PM)
Ok, so why couldn't this be the case: if the pole was so long and bent, why couldn't one end poke through the windshield while the other end was on the pavement. Since it is curved it may not touch the hood of the car. And with one end on the pavement, it would be easier to lift the pole out, since you'd only have to life one end. And if one end stayed on the pavement the whole time, then as you lifted the other end up, you wouldn't touch the hood but might even damage the windshield more towards the top.

Because that is not what Lloyd said happened and only the very top was bent.

Lloyd says that part was hidden in the back seat area while the long base end of the pole was sticking out over the hood.

Watch his interview.

He is quite clear.


Regardless the plane wasn't anywhere near the poles.

This has already been proven.

Aldo Marquis CIT - August 14, 2007 10:09 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (buddy @ Aug 14 2007, 04:58 PM)
Ok, so why couldn't this be the case: if the pole was so long and bent, why couldn't one end poke through the windshield while the other end was on the pavement. Since it is curved it may not touch the hood of the car. And with one end on the pavement, it would be easier to lift the pole out, since you'd only have to lift one end. And if one end stayed on the pavement the whole time, then as you lifted the other end up, you wouldn't touch the hood but might even damage the windshield more towards the top.

Buddy,

The plane was nowhere near those poles. It was the farthest away from Pole 1. Lloyd's pole.

user posted image

buddy - August 14, 2007 10:17 PM (GMT)
yeah I know about the poles. I've discussed that with you guys for a long time. I'm with you. The plane was no near them. I just have never been able to be convinced of what really happened, including this guys cab.

Craig Ranke CIT - August 14, 2007 10:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (buddy @ Aug 14 2007, 10:17 PM)
yeah I know about the poles. I've discussed that with you guys for a long time. I'm with you. The plane was no near them. I just have never been able to be convinced of what really happened, including this guys cab.

It's difficult to imagine that a seemingly nice guy like Lloyd could be involved like this.

It's difficult to imagine how ANYONE could be involved with an operation as heinous as 9/11.

But this was the most complex psychological black operation in world history so it's clear that many people were directly involved in this deception.

We can't expect operatives to "seem" like spooks.

People of all different types at all different levels on a need to know basis HAD to have been involved.

Lloyd could very well be a completely innocent dupe.

Or a patsy of sorts who was manipulated into participating.

But the evidence is what it is and the fact that we can now, through the evidence, identify a direct link to the perps is an EXTREMELY important opportunity to solving this crime.


truth911.net - August 14, 2007 10:45 PM (GMT)
ok... here's my current theory about the pentagon, flight path, eyewitnesses, etc.:

i spoke to russel pickering of pentagonreserach well over a year ago, and he had also talked to Lloyd. so i looked into this a while back, and this was the conclusion that i had come to a while back. and now i'm combining this previous theory with the new evidence in the Pentacon.

Like the 3 witnesses in the Pentacon said, the flight path of the plane was on the left of CITGO and is not the flight path of the official story. So, if the plane didn't knock down those light poles... then what did? I therefore came to the conclusion that explosives were planted on the light poles to give the impression that a plane flew in and hit the building.

From Lloyd's perspective, he sees a plane flying in pretty low to the ground (but not directly on top of him). So he sees the plane on it's "correct" or "actual" flight path. However, just as this is happening, the explosives are detonated on the light poles, and one pole comes crashing down into his window. He just assumed that the plane had knocked down the pole since he caught a glimpse of the plane just as the poles came crashing down.

russel had looked into the light poles themselves, and what he told me, was that these poles were extremely light weight. suppoedly around airports or whatever, the poles are designed to pop out of the ground in case an aircraft hits it. so when we look at the pictures, it's hard to imagine how 2 people could lift that big pole without scratching the hood. but i think in reality, the poles were much lighter than you would expect.

it's interesting to see that his wife worked for the FBI and the david ike book... but i'm not so quick to call him a planted witness. though when we look back, it's clear that there were planted witnesses at the Twin Towers (like the guy in 9/11 Mysteries)... so it's definitely possible he is hiding something. but i'm inclined to believe that a pole hit his car because explosives made all the poles collapse and he of course naturally assumed it was the plane that flew nearby him (though not directly over top him). so i wouldn't say that his testimony directly contradicts the other 3 witnesses... i believe all 4 witnesses are telling the truth. maybe i'm wrong, who knows... but that's my current theory at least.

the plane of course, then flew over the pentagon as suggested in pandora's black box chapter 2.

my question to the makers of this film.... what knocked down the light poles?

P.S. If we got a little fund together, how would you guys feel about getting all 4 witnesses (or maybe just lloyd) hooked up to a polygraph or lie detector. See if there's a way to pay someone to conduct an independent lie dectetor test. Then pay lloyd like $500 or $1000 to take the test. Explain to him that you believe his story, and you're trying to disprove other people that think he's lying. If he doesn't want to do the lie detector test, and turns down $1000 to take the test, then you know he's lying.

in fact, this idea of a having 9/11 truth people on a lie detector test could be very valuable. I'm sure a lot of you would like to see fetzer and other "no planers" up there to ask them if they are intentionally trying to discredit the movement.... as long as other people like Steven Jones go up there too and are asked whether he was placed in the 9/11 movement in the same that that he was placed in the cold fusion research only to set cold fusion research back 20 years.

racerX - August 14, 2007 10:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 04:37 PM)
Without further ado.......CIT presents:

"The First Known Accomplice?"

Well, I dont know if you realized it but you definitely crossed the line there.

Considering the evidence you got... your claims are outrageous. Defamation doesnt even begin to cover it. Its more like defecation.

Where is the video clip where you tell this to his face?

buddy - August 14, 2007 11:01 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE (buddy @ Aug 14 2007, 10:17 PM)
yeah I know about the poles. I've discussed that with you guys for a long time. I'm with you. The plane was no near them. I just have never been able to be convinced of what really happened, including this guys cab.

It's difficult to imagine that a seemingly nice guy like Lloyd could be involved like this.

It's difficult to imagine how ANYONE could be involved with an operation as heinous as 9/11.

But this was the most complex psychological black operation in world history so it's clear that many people were directly involved in this deception.

We can't expect operatives to "seem" like spooks.

People of all different types at all different levels on a need to know basis HAD to have been involved.

Lloyd could very well be a completely innocent dupe.

Or a patsy of sorts who was manipulated into participating.

But the evidence is what it is and the fact that we can now, through the evidence, identify a direct link to the perps is an EXTREMELY important opportunity to solving this crime.

No that's not the difficult part. No alternative theory makes sense.

Powerhouse - August 14, 2007 11:04 PM (GMT)
Craig and Aldo, are you still sticking with that blue flight path that we see in the first minute or so of this video? Would you like me to run some calculations on it?



QUOTE
suppoedly around airports or whatever, the poles are designed to pop out of the ground in case an aircraft hits it.
No, poles around roads are designed to break off in case cars hit them. You see them all over - not just light poles, but poles that support traffic lights and traffic signs too. Next time you pass by a speed limit sign, take a look, and you'll probably see that the pole is not one continuous piece, but has two plates that are bolted together near the ground, and those bolts will break with an impact and the sign is supposed to just flip up and out of the way.

Craig Ranke CIT - August 14, 2007 11:25 PM (GMT)
truth911.net,

The poles are 247 lbs and 40 feet long.

They are by no means "light".

user posted image

I examine the same style poles at the vdot in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoypAJ2KD-8

There is no evidence for explosives being used to down them and there is still the fact to deal with that there was ZERO damage to the hood of his car and his story is absurd.

They were planted in advance and photographic evidence showing the feds staging the scene is available here:
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

These images of the base of the poles compared to the same style base that was knocked down by a sudden force (wind) are here:

user posted image
user posted image


The poles were removed in advance and the damage to them was pre-fabricated.

Craig Ranke CIT - August 14, 2007 11:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (racerX @ Aug 14 2007, 10:56 PM)


Where is the video clip where you tell this to his face?

Where's the clip of you telling ALL of the citgo witnesses that they were lying or hallucinating?

Give them a call.

Set it up.

All the info you need is right here.

j911ob - August 14, 2007 11:32 PM (GMT)
Craig, the JREF saddos are already calling for lawyers to help sue you on Lloyds behalf.

They are too stupid to realise that the truth movement would love to be sued because the evidence would then get presented in court.

Craig Ranke CIT - August 14, 2007 11:35 PM (GMT)
You have to choose to believe Lloyd's ludicrous account or the CITGO witnesses.

They can not be simultaneously true.

Everyone MUST make that choice.

It is not logical to dismiss the CITGO witnesses when they corroborate each other and Lloyd's account makes such little sense.

Even if he was manipulated or coerced the implications are clear.

People like RacerX will try to demonize us for this but clearly there were A LOT of people involved with this operation.

This movement will go nowhere if we refuse to accept this notion.

racerX - August 14, 2007 11:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (j911ob @ Aug 14 2007, 06:32 PM)
Craig, the JREF saddos are already calling for lawyers to help sue you on Lloyds behalf.

They are too stupid to realise that the truth movement would love to be sued because the evidence would then get presented in court.

Thats no reason to use Lloyd that way because the evidence, in that case, just isnt there in the first place.

It comes from contradicting accounts from interviews 5 years after the fact and a badly put together theory.

Thats a lose-lose for the 'truth movement'.

Sorry.

Craig Ranke CIT - August 14, 2007 11:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (j911ob @ Aug 14 2007, 11:32 PM)
Craig, the JREF saddos are already calling for lawyers to help sue you on Lloyds behalf.

They are too stupid to realise that the truth movement would love to be sued because the evidence would then get presented in court.

Yeah we knew they would.

There is no way this will go to trial.

Craig Ranke CIT - August 14, 2007 11:38 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (racerX @ Aug 14 2007, 11:36 PM)

It comes from contradicting accounts from interviews 5 years after the fact and a badly put together theory.


Nonsense.

There is more where that came from.

Wait until you hear our latest north side witness.

He had an AMAZING view of the bank and describes it in detail.

TxGuy - August 14, 2007 11:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (j911ob @ Aug 14 2007, 06:32 PM)
Craig, the JREF saddos are already calling for lawyers to help sue you on Lloyds behalf.

They are too stupid to realise that the truth movement would love to be sued because the evidence would then get presented in court.

Just like Kevin Ryan's? Don't make me laugh. How is the ignoring Jref going DOPE?

RedDawn - August 15, 2007 12:17 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Powerhouse @ Aug 14 2007, 06:04 PM)
Craig and Aldo, are you still sticking with that blue flight path that we see in the first minute or so of this video? Would you like me to run some calculations on it?



QUOTE
suppoedly around airports or whatever, the poles are designed to pop out of the ground in case an aircraft hits it.
No, poles around roads are designed to break off in case cars hit them. You see them all over - not just light poles, but poles that support traffic lights and traffic signs too. Next time you pass by a speed limit sign, take a look, and you'll probably see that the pole is not one continuous piece, but has two plates that are bolted together near the ground, and those bolts will break with an impact and the sign is supposed to just flip up and out of the way.

QUOTE
suppoedly around airports or whatever, the poles are designed to pop out of the ground in case an aircraft hits it.


Please tell me Craig or Aldo didn't say this.

Link?

TxGuy - August 15, 2007 12:22 AM (GMT)
Hey Craig or Aldo, can either of you guys tell me if you got a release from Lloyd to use him in a video like this?

Clueless In September - August 15, 2007 12:47 AM (GMT)
Do the words libel or slander ring a bell?

dylan avery - August 15, 2007 01:05 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 15 2007, 12:22 AM)
Hey Craig or Aldo, can either of you guys tell me if you got a release from Lloyd to use him in a video like this?

In all fairness, I shot it. They, along with Russ, were present.

Arabesque - August 15, 2007 01:33 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 10:01 PM)
Regardless the plane wasn't anywhere near the poles.

This has already been proven.

Proven?

You haven't even come close to explaining how the light pole damage was faked. You've offered no explanation for how the light poles were taken down.

Here's an inconvenient fact: The poles were decapitated at the TOP. How could "explosives" accomplish THAT.

Just how the HECK did they do that? How did they fake damage to a taxi cab in broad daylight in typical early morning traffic? Why would they do that?

The sheer implausibility involved means there would be no motive to attempt such a stunningly ridiculous stunt.

Three self contradictory witnesses statements don't "prove" anything except the unreliability of memory. The claim that watching a plane hitting a building is less memorable than a flight path is absurd.

If THREE of your witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how is *that* not "smoking gun" corroborated testimony?

Special Pleading: chose the evidence you want to believe and ignore the evidence you don't want to believe.

It was an interesting interview though, and quite informative, although your speculations are very unconvincing, and not many people are going to agree with your circular logic that everything at the Pentagon was faked except for SMALL PARTS of three contradictory eyewitness statements.

Again:

1. Fly a plane into a building. Make the hijacker look guilty
2. Fly a plane over a building. Make the hijacker look like a retard

TxGuy - August 15, 2007 02:27 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ Aug 14 2007, 08:05 PM)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 15 2007, 12:22 AM)
Hey Craig or Aldo, can either of you guys tell me if you got a release from Lloyd to use him in a video like this?

In all fairness, I shot it. They, along with Russ, were present.

Yes and when they first showed the vide, Russell left in disgust because of the way they took advantage of Llyod. If you have a release Dylan that's great but then the release isn't legally transferable to CIT so they can use the footage in a different video.

Aldo Marquis CIT - August 15, 2007 02:44 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Arabesque @ Aug 14 2007, 08:33 PM)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 10:01 PM)
Regardless the plane wasn't anywhere near the poles.

This has already been proven.

Proven?

You haven't even come close to explaining how the light pole damage was faked. You've offered no explanation for how the light poles were taken down.

Here's an inconvenient fact: The poles were decapitated at the TOP. How could "explosives" accomplish THAT.

Just how the HECK did they do that? How did they fake damage to a taxi cab in broad daylight in typical early morning traffic? Why would they do that?

The sheer implausibility involved means there would be no motive to attempt such a stunningly ridiculous stunt.


That's because you are constructing a weak and asanine strawman.

WE HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES ARABESQUE.

Let's see if you retain it this time.

No explosives were involved with the light pole. I would almost say that you are slightly mentally challenged or you are a dishonest operative trying to attribute words to us we've never said. WE NEVER SAID EXPLOSIVES WERE INVOLVED.

Light poles were removed months in advance. A VDOT representative said "anything is possible" when it comes to them not being aware of a removal. No one would notice 5 light poles missing, that were removed in the middle of the night.

4 prefabbed light poles were laid out in the grass in inconspicuous areas in the night time/early am hours. You can't see the poles from the elevated highway. No one would be paying attention to light poles on the side of the road that they can't even see. Most people were looking straight ahead, on their cell phones, listening to their radio for news in NYC. Those poles didn't exist until after the plane came by and explosion happened and people traversed the lawn.

Pole 1 was more than likely on the little shoulder, and was pulled out to the road after the cab moved into position.

The cab obviously didn't have any damage on his hood. So logic would dictate that he drove up there, possibly with his fare (handler), got off the on ramp going north and went under the bridge. His handler gets out with a crowbar or aluminum bat and smashed the windshield when the plane passed over and the explosive went off. Or perhaps he kicked it from the inside and pulled it in with the crowbar. The dash and seat were handled well in advance. Maybe they were brazen enough to unload him off that yellow trailer we see in photos and his windshield was already damaged. But I think he drove a car that looked normal on the outside and only needed the windshiled smashed. It could be accomplished under that bridge.

Now, I am making a note, maybe even screencapturing this exchange, to prove that this has been explained to you. If you raise this issue again and misrepresent what we have BEEN saying, you will be publically chastized.

Aldo Marquis CIT - August 15, 2007 02:46 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 09:27 PM)
If you have a release

Yes, that's key.

You going to do something about it clown?

Call Lloyd up. Please let him know.

TxGuy - August 15, 2007 02:50 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 09:27 PM)
If you have a release

Yes, that's key.

You going to do something about it clown?

Call Lloyd up. Please let him know.

I asked a question and if your not going to answer why are you wasting your time with a stupid response? Oh, in case you CIT guys are interested, a CD of your video was given to Lloyd a little over 10 minutes after it was posted. Now if you want, call him and verify what I told you and record it if you like :)

TxGuy - August 15, 2007 02:53 AM (GMT)
Interesting thing is a release wouldn't help since the title alone is defamation.

Arabesque - August 15, 2007 03:01 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
That's because you are constructing a weak and asanine strawman.

WE HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES ARABESQUE.

Let's see if you retain it this time.

No explosives were involved with the light pole. I would almost say that you are slightly mentally challenged or you are a dishonest operative trying to attribute words to us we've never said. WE NEVER SAID EXPLOSIVES WERE INVOLVED.

Light poles were removed months in advance. A VDOT representative said "anything is possible" when it comes to them not being aware of a removal. No one would notice 5 light poles missing, that were removed in the middle of the night.

4 prefabbed light poles were laid out in the grass in inconspicuous areas. You can't see the poles from the elevated highway. No one would be paying attention to light poles on the side of the road that they can't even see. Most people were looking straight ahead, on their cell phones, listening to their radio for news in NYC. Those poles didn't exist until after the plane came by and explosion happened and people traversed the lawn.

Pole 1 was more than likely on the little shoulder, and was pulled out to the road after the cab moved into position.

The cab obviously didn't have any damage on his hood. So logic would dictate that he drove up there, possibly with his fare (handler), got off the on ramp going north and went under the bridge. His handler gets out with a crowbar or aluminum bat and smashed the windshield when the plane passed over and the explosive went off. Or perhaps he kicked it from the inside and pulled it in with the crowbar. The dash and seat were handled well in advance. Maybe they were brazen enough to unload him off that yellow trailer we see in photos and his windshield was already damaged. But I think he drove a car that looked normal on the outside and only needed the windshiled smashed. It could be accomplished under that bridge.

Now, I am making a note, maybe even screencapturing this exchange, to prove that this has been explained to you. If you raise this issue again and misrepresent what we have BEEN saying, you will be publically chastized.


HAHA... your insults are quite funny and hilariously displaced. Someone else in this thread made claimed this theory. Screen capture this my paranoid friend.

If the light poles were removed in advance:

1. How do you explain the taxi cab damage? Where did that broken light pole come from and how did they "plant" it on the site in broad daylight? Certainly you know how large they are.
2. How do you explain that no one reported five missing light poles.

I don't even know what your theory is, so pardon my ignorance since I don't obsess or have the patience to hound over the latest "theory without evidence" (aka: non falsifiable speculation) you guys come up with.

Of course the illogical fantasy world rhetoric of CIT does not surprise me one bit--these are the people who called me a LIAR before I even showed them evidence exists that there are witnesses who saw the light poles, generator, and Pentagon get hit (and contradict the N. of Citgo claim).

After I show that YES, there is contradictory testimony, they simply dismiss it as "propaganda". http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/c...moking-gun.html

I think we know who the real liars are.

TxGuy - August 15, 2007 03:01 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 06:36 PM)
QUOTE (j911ob @ Aug 14 2007, 11:32 PM)
Craig, the JREF saddos are already calling for lawyers to help sue you on Lloyds behalf.

They are too stupid to realise that the truth movement would love to be sued because the evidence would then get presented in court.

Yeah we knew they would.

There is no way this will go to trial.

Who said anything about trial?

Aldo Marquis CIT - August 15, 2007 03:17 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Arabesque @ Aug 14 2007, 10:01 PM)
QUOTE
That's because you are constructing a weak and asanine strawman.

WE HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES ARABESQUE.

Let's see if you retain it this time.

No explosives were involved with the light pole. I would almost say that you are slightly mentally challenged or you are a dishonest operative trying to attribute words to us we've never said. WE NEVER SAID EXPLOSIVES WERE INVOLVED.

Light poles were removed months in advance. A VDOT representative said "anything is possible" when it comes to them not being aware of a removal. No one would notice 5 light poles missing, that were removed in the middle of the night.

4 prefabbed light poles were laid out in the grass in inconspicuous areas. You can't see the poles from the elevated highway. No one would be paying attention to light poles on the side of the road that they can't even see. Most people were looking straight ahead, on their cell phones, listening to their radio for news in NYC. Those poles didn't exist until after the plane came by and explosion happened and people traversed the lawn.

Pole 1 was more than likely on the little shoulder, and was pulled out to the road after the cab moved into position.

The cab obviously didn't have any damage on his hood. So logic would dictate that he drove up there, possibly with his fare (handler), got off the on ramp going north and went under the bridge. His handler gets out with a crowbar or aluminum bat and smashed the windshield when the plane passed over and the explosive went off. Or perhaps he kicked it from the inside and pulled it in with the crowbar. The dash and seat were handled well in advance. Maybe they were brazen enough to unload him off that yellow trailer we see in photos and his windshield was already damaged. But I think he drove a car that looked normal on the outside and only needed the windshiled smashed. It could be accomplished under that bridge.

Now, I am making a note, maybe even screencapturing this exchange, to prove that this has been explained to you. If you raise this issue again and misrepresent what we have BEEN saying, you will be publically chastized.


HAHA... your insults are quite funny and hilariously displaced. Someone else in this thread made claimed this theory. Screen capture this my paranoid friend.

If the light poles were removed in advance:

1. How do you explain the taxi cab damage? Where did that broken light pole come from and how did they "plant" it on the site in broad daylight? Certainly you know how large they are.
2. How do you explain that no one reported five missing light poles.

I don't even know what your theory is, so pardon my ignorance since I don't obsess or have the patience to hound over the latest "theory without evidence" (aka: non falsifiable speculation) you guys come up with.

Of course the illogical fantasy world rhetoric of CIT does not surprise me one bit--these are the people who called me a LIAR before I even showed them evidence exists that there are witnesses who saw the light poles, generator, and Pentagon get hit (and contradict the N. of Citgo claim).

After I show that YES, there is contradictory testimony, they simply dismiss it as "propaganda". http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/c...moking-gun.html

I think we know who the real liars are.

Remember, you make no sense. Repeat yourself. Desperatly post witnesses without analyzing them.

And are anonymous.

I am not anonymous and I speak with people who were there.

Remember that.


Aldo Marquis CIT - August 15, 2007 03:19 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 09:27 PM)
If you have a release

Yes, that's key.

You going to do something about it clown?

Call Lloyd up. Please let him know.

I asked a question and if your not going to answer why are you wasting your time with a stupid response? Oh, in case you CIT guys are interested, a CD of your video was given to Lloyd a little over 10 minutes after it was posted. Now if you want, call him and verify what I told you and record it if you like :)

Wow. Good.

Maybe he'll do the same thing he did last time.


Nothing. :D

Aldo Marquis CIT - August 15, 2007 03:21 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 09:27 PM)

Yes and when they first showed the vide, Russell left in disgust because of the way they took advantage of Llyod.

When did this happen scummy? Link? Source?

TxGuy - August 15, 2007 03:22 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 10:19 PM)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 09:27 PM)
If you have a release

Yes, that's key.

You going to do something about it clown?

Call Lloyd up. Please let him know.

I asked a question and if your not going to answer why are you wasting your time with a stupid response? Oh, in case you CIT guys are interested, a CD of your video was given to Lloyd a little over 10 minutes after it was posted. Now if you want, call him and verify what I told you and record it if you like :)

Wow. Good.

Maybe he'll do the same thing he did last time.


Nothing. :D

Maybe but last time you didn't make him star of a video titled the first accomplice did you?

Justicia - August 15, 2007 03:25 AM (GMT)
Aldo and Craig,

That clip is despicable. Where do you get off accusing a man of being an accomplice to murder like that? What the hell is wrong with you?





Aldo Marquis CIT - August 15, 2007 03:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 10:22 PM)

Maybe

Yeah exactly.

Ain't nothing going to happen cupcake. Nothing.

He knows what he did.

Justicia - August 15, 2007 03:30 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Arabesque @ Aug 14 2007, 10:01 PM)
HAHA... your insults are quite funny and hilariously displaced. Someone else in this thread made claimed this theory. Screen capture this my paranoid friend.

If the light poles were removed in advance:

1. How do you explain the taxi cab damage? Where did that broken light pole come from and how did they "plant" it on the site in broad daylight? Certainly you know how large they are.
2. How do you explain that no one reported five missing light poles.

I don't even know what your theory is, so pardon my ignorance since I don't obsess or have the patience to hound over the latest "theory without evidence" (aka: non falsifiable speculation) you guys come up with.

Of course the illogical fantasy world rhetoric of CIT does not surprise me one bit--these are the people who called me a LIAR before I even showed them evidence exists that there are witnesses who saw the light poles, generator, and Pentagon get hit (and contradict the N. of Citgo claim).

After I show that YES, there is contradictory testimony, they simply dismiss it as "propaganda". http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/c...moking-gun.html

I think we know who the real liars are.

Nice post, and yes, I think everyone here knows who the real liars are.

And the paranoia, man, oh man. When exactly did the cheese slide off the cracker for Aldo and Craig? It would be sad if what they are doing was not so despicable.




TxGuy - August 15, 2007 03:33 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 14 2007, 10:25 PM)
QUOTE (TxGuy @ Aug 14 2007, 10:22 PM)

Maybe

Yeah exactly.

Ain't nothing going to happen cupcake. Nothing.

He knows what he did.

Is this a family picture?

user posted image

Arabesque - August 15, 2007 03:44 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Aug 15 2007, 03:17 AM)
QUOTE


And are anonymous.

I am not anonymous and I speak with people who were there.

Remember that.

Yes, I am anonymous to you, but there are very important people in the 9/11 truth movement who know who I am. I have even helped a certain prominent member of the truth movement blog on 911blogger. I have writings in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

This is an absurd appeal to authority argument.

It doesn't matter who I am, it matters if my argument is true or not, and that I **don't** distort evidence by cherry picking it, leaving stuff out, or make bogus claims without *real* evidence to back it up.

UnderTow - August 15, 2007 04:01 AM (GMT)
Is your argument about something which we don't really know about because of a cover up?

Another guardian of knowledge here to tell everyone what really happened. I'm glad it doesn't matter who you are really.

edit: TxGuy is such a loser...




Hosted for free by zIFBoards