View Full Version: Lyte&merc: Explain The >fly Over Theory<

Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > Lyte&merc: Explain The >fly Over Theory<

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Title: Lyte&merc: Explain The >fly Over Theory<


davel - March 2, 2007 12:29 PM (GMT)
I apologize for my bad image composing skills but what exactly is the fly over therory?

Do you think the plane flew over the pentagon like in this animation:

user posted image

Or more like this one?

user posted image


davel - March 2, 2007 12:57 PM (GMT)
And please explain what could have happend or what you think happend.
As far i understand your theory, this happend:

1. They take a passenger plane, (not flight 77?)
2. then they fly towards the pentagon (very low altitude)
3. they blow up the wall, (To hide the plane behind the explosion)
4. then they spontaneously pull up the plane, (in the same second as the explosion)
5. they quickly place debris, (How did they do it???)
6. then they damage the lightpoles on the highly frequented Washington Blvd.
7. Somehow they manage to cloak (Drivers heading towards the Pentagon on the Jevverson Davey Highway or the Washington Blvd. don`t notice the plane) and land the plane somewhere without any notice from any airtraffic control.

Do you think this happend? And if so:

Why did nobody see it flying over the pentagon? I assume that everybody who heard or saw the explosion watched the scene. There are two highly frequented streets around the pentagon, so i guess there were hundreds of cars driving towards the pentagon or passing by on this sunny, clear day.

Why did the flight control center fail to see the plane still flying on their radar? Didn`t they know about the alleged hijacked plane heading towards Washington?

And did you talk to one of them?


Ashoka - March 2, 2007 01:07 PM (GMT)
Davel, have you seen the Pentacon?

In the first seconds of the movie there is a graphic animation, made by Pier, that shows the flyover...


Google video link

The animation is in the trailer too

Trailer on Youtube

bye,

Ashoka

Jarroyo - March 2, 2007 03:11 PM (GMT)
davel, I think the first image you posted represents more accurately Lyte and Merc's flight path.

This is a Gif extract from the animation of the Pentacon:

user posted image

To Lyte and Merc the plane was flying very high and not at all horizontal to the pentagon wall.

J

PS: Here is a smaller Gif :D

user posted image

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 03:17 PM (GMT)
Anyone who isn't comfortable accepting the flyover theory is welcome to present their own hypothesis about what happened to the plane after it flew on the north of the station.

We look forward to your suggestions.

Thanks,
CIT

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 03:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 03:17 PM)
Anyone who isn't comfortable accepting the flyover theory is welcome to present their own hypothesis about what happened to the plane after it flew on the north of the station.

We look forward to your suggestions.

Thanks,
CIT

There is NO proof the plane flew north of the Citgo.

You have eyewitness testimony of people who believe it did 5 years later.

A memory of where something was is not where the thing actually was.

1) Lagasse remembered he was somewhere he wasn't.
2) Lagasse remembered the entire cab scene where it wasn't.
3) Lagasse has placed a plane where it wasn't 75% of the time.

You really need to be honest about beliefs versus proof and phrase it properly when discussing it. That will help you when the real heat comes your way.

Departure Lounge - March 2, 2007 03:38 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 03:17 PM)
Anyone who isn't comfortable accepting the flyover theory is welcome to present their own hypothesis about what happened to the plane after it flew on the north of the station.

We look forward to your suggestions.

Thanks,
CIT

My hypothesis is that the plane flew along the path of the damaged light poles and crashed into the pentagon. This is based on the evidence recovered from the crash scene and eyewitness reports from the day which are well documented on numerous websites. Here are 2:

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/penta...ensions_est.htm

Citizen Merc - March 2, 2007 03:51 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 03:26 PM)

There is NO proof the plane flew north of the Citgo.


Right, contact Lagasse and Brooks then you coward.

You are so transparent.

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 04:11 PM (GMT)
We haven't even gotten to Brooks yet.

Why didn't you write a question asking him to tell us which way his car was facing?

You KNOW the problems with that from his first interview.

Are you still imagining I am an agent?

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 04:53 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 03:26 PM)

There is NO proof the plane flew north of the Citgo.

You have eyewitness testimony of people who believe it did 5 years later.

A memory of where something was is not where the thing actually was.

1) Lagasse remembered he was somewhere he wasn't.
2) Lagasse remembered the entire cab scene where it wasn't.
3) Lagasse has placed a plane where it wasn't 75% of the time.

You really need to be honest about beliefs versus proof and phrase it properly when discussing it. That will help you when the real heat comes your way.

NONE of the 3 points you mention have any bearing whatsoever on Lagasse's POV.

Why do you keep ignoring the extreme importance of his POV?

QUOTE

1.  Lagasse remembered he was somewhere he wasn't.


This was a minor detail that had "NO BEARING" on his point of view. Did you not hear him say that? Do you not agree? If not please explain why because his postion on the far NORTH END of the gas station does not change by being merely being parked 15 feet behind where he originally remembered.

It's completely deceptive of you to suggest that this is a legitimate reason as to why he would remember the completely opposite placement of the plane from what really happened.

QUOTE

2.  Lagasse remembered the entire cab scene where it wasn't.


Once again this has nothing whatsoever to do with his placement of the plane. You are FILLED with absurd logical fallacies in this discussion because this is the only way you can spin this rock solid data. His POV is such that he would see and notice the plane on the north side perfectly but there is no reason to suggest he would have seen the taxi at all until he drove over the area. And even then, in all the post event chaos, there is no reason to suggest he should remember perfectly on what side of the bridge the taxi was. This detail would have been considered insignificant to him at time where as the placement of the plane would clearly be the most obvious and significant detail that he witnessed.

Besides......he may be right about this. The planted cab may have been moved.

Again.....this has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on his extremely simple and detailed description of a plane on the north side.

His POV of a plane on the south side however wouldn't have been very good at all.

QUOTE

3.  Lagasse has placed a plane where it wasn't 75% of the time.


What? He has ALWAYS said north/starboard side. Now you are making stuff up and even making up bogus statistics to make it seem more legitimate.

Your deception and spin tactics are unparalleled.





buddy - March 2, 2007 04:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 10:26 AM)
There is NO proof the plane flew north of the Citgo.

You have eyewitness testimony of people who believe it did 5 years later.

You've got "proof" and "evidence" mixed up:

proof: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

evidence: an outward sign, something that furnishes proof, something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

The testimonies are evidence. The argument and explanation of what happened, and how, is the proof. Proof that something happened a particular way is done when there are no other explanations that fit better and that other explanations are highly unlikely or impossible.

This is an approach the the government should take when proving that official story of 9/11.

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 05:20 PM (GMT)
Lyte,

I know you want to discount everything your witnesses said except for the thing you set out to prove.

But I am sorry it doesn't work that way. You have to admit the errors. You guys are willing to believe he embellished and even made up a story about being blown into the car to explain him ducking back into it.

Here is what you are saying (or have said) broken down.

1) I don't believe my witness about the plane hitting the Pentagon.
2) I called my witness a liar in the past in part due to him claiming he saw the shades down.
3) I don't believe my witness when he describe the exact position of the plane over the annex in an earlier interview because in this one he stated he did not see the plane over the annex.
4) I do not believe him when he states his explosives experience and clearly tells you it was NOT explosives he witnessed.
5) I don't believe my witness was actually blown into the car.
6) I do not believe my witness when he says it was clearly an AA plane because I believe it was a military plane that was white or gray.
7) I do not believe my witness saw the plane yaw at impact because I believe he did not see an impact.
8) I do not believe my witness estimating the speed of the plane because that kind of turn at 400 mph violates physics and was not reported by anybody.
9) I do not believe my witness was standing in the location he was having memories from because the video proved that incorrect. But in the case of another witness I believe the video was altered with no proof and I refuse the opportunity to prove it.
10) I don't believe my witness in the elevation of 100-150 AGL because another witness claims it had to pull up over a 30 foot high sign which was 10 feet below the lamp poles and if the plane dove from 150 AGL to 30 AGL in that time frame it is impossible to have pulled up.

COMPARED TO:

1) I believe my witness because he said the plane was on the north and that is what I want to believe.

buddy - March 2, 2007 05:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 12:20 PM)
Lyte,

I know you want to discount everything your witnesses said except for the thing you set out to prove.

But I am sorry it doesn't work that way. You have to admit the errors. You guys are willing to believe he embellished and even made up a story about being blown into the car to explain him ducking back into it.

Here is what you are saying (or have said) broken down.

1) I don't believe my witness about the plane hitting the Pentagon.
2) I called my witness a liar in the past in part due to him claiming he saw the shades down.
3) I don't believe my witness when he describe the exact position of the plane over the annex in an earlier interview because in this one he stated he did not see the plane over the annex.
4) I do not believe him when he states his explosives experience and clearly tells you it was NOT explosives he witnessed.
5) I don't believe my witness was actually blown into the car.
6) I do not believe my witness when he says it was clearly an AA plane because I believe it was a military plane that was white or gray.
7) I do not believe my witness saw the plane yaw at impact because I believe he did not see an impact.
8) I do not believe my witness estimating the speed of the plane because that kind of turn at 400 mph violates physics and was not reported by anybody.
9) I do not believe my witness was standing in the location he was having memories from because the video proved that incorrect. But in the case of another witness I believe the video was altered with no proof and I refuse the opportunity to prove it.
10) I don't believe my witness in the elevation of 100-150 AGL because another witness claims it had to pull up over a 30 foot high sign which was 10 feet below the lamp poles and if the plane dove from 150 AGL to 30 AGL in that time frame it is impossible to have pulled up.

COMPARED TO:

1) I believe my witness because he said the plane was on the north and that is what I want to believe.

Wait now. You are dong the same thing. And from what I saw in the Pentacon video, the main point being made was that the plane was on the north side on the Citgo station, not whether the shades were down, whether there was an explosion, or what type of plane it actually was. The impact into the building was addressed but that is separate from where the plane was flying in relation to the Citgo.

You can take different parts of the testimonies and test them. If several people independently state that the saw the plane flying in a particular location and those testimonies corroborate, then that's pretty strong. If one person says that he saw shades down, but no one else did, and if he only saw that for a split second, then that is not so strong..

The point I got from the film is that there is strong evidence that the plane was on the north side, not the south which is where the official story indicates, and the only reason it really matters is because the lightpoles were on the flight path of the plane if it flew on the south side. So we have a mystery here: how does a plane flying on the north of the Citgo knock down lighpoles that are south of that flight plan? I don't know, but it cannot just be brushed aside. (And I am not on board yet with the flyover theory)

SDG guy - March 2, 2007 05:38 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (buddy @ Mar 2 2007, 05:31 PM)
If several people independently state that the saw the plane flying in a particular location and those testimonies corroborate, then that's pretty strong.

Well I count 184 statements here that say otherwise. Would you then conclude that's pretty strong?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide...esses/bart.html

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 05:38 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (buddy @ Mar 2 2007, 05:31 PM)

Wait now. You are dong the same thing. And from what I saw in the Pentacon video, the main point being made was that the plane was on the north side on the Citgo station, not whether the shades were down, whether there was an explosion, or what type of plane it actually was. The impact into the building was addressed but that is separate from where the plane was flying in relation to the Citgo.

You can take different parts of the testimonies and test them. If several people independently state that the saw the plane flying in a particular location and those testimonies corroborate, then that's pretty strong. If one person says that he saw shades down, but no one else did, and if he only saw that for a split second, then that is not so strong..

The point I got from the film is that there is strong evidence that the plane was on the north side, not the south which is where the official story indicates, and the only reason it really matters is because the lightpoles were on the flight path of the plane if it flew on the south side. So we have a mystery here: how does a plane flying on the north of the Citgo knock down lighpoles that are south of that flight plan? I don't know, but it cannot just be brushed aside. (And I am not on board yet with the flyover theory)

Buddy,

Welcome to the forums.

Yes - IF this film had been promoted as eyewitness testimony contrary to the official story that would be fine.

Yes - if questions had not been avoided that would be fine.

Yes - if there was proof the Citgo video was altered that would be fine

etc. etc. etc.

But this is being sold as 100% true.

Maybe since you are new, take the time to read the other threads in detail about this and familiarize yourself to the arguments already made.

Halliburton - March 2, 2007 05:40 PM (GMT)
IMO this is why a fly over is only plausible answer..... no way on earth this is AA77 500mph, inches off the ground....NOWAY!....

user posted image

SDG guy - March 2, 2007 05:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Halliburton @ Mar 2 2007, 05:40 PM)
IMO this is why a fly over is only plausible answer..... no way on earth this is AA77 500mph, inches off the ground....NOWAY!....

user posted image

Way.

Halliburton - March 2, 2007 05:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (SDG guy @ Mar 2 2007, 05:41 PM)
QUOTE (Halliburton @ Mar 2 2007, 05:40 PM)
IMO this is why a fly over is only plausible answer.....  no way on earth this is AA77 500mph, inches off the ground....NOWAY!....

user posted image

Way.

provide youre positive ID it is AA77....

from both PARTS, and or after dropping off radar....

till you can, you are assuming it is AA77

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 05:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:20 PM)

I know you want to discount everything your witnesses said except for the thing you set out to prove.

But I am sorry it doesn't work that way. You have to admit the errors. You guys are willing to believe he embellished and even made up a story about being blown into the car to explain him ducking back into it.


We DID admit and include their errors!

But the errors are irrelevant to the fact that they ALL place the plane on the north.

We are willing to believe Lagasse embellished the wing vortex becuase he admitted that he did!

The placement of the plane is by far the simplest and most significant detail.

It is completely logical for us to suggest that this detail would be remembered the most accurately.

Why?

POV

Remember that? It means point of view.

Their point of view was perfect to tell on what side of the station the plane flew.

They all say the same thing.

To suggest that mistakes about other less significant details have any bearing whatsoever on this simple right or left quadruple corroborated claim is insane and is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

To suggest that they would be SO CERTAIN about this detail but yet the exact opposite of what they all claim is truly what happened is beyond deceptive.

To suggest that WE are the ones picking and choosing what to believe is absurd when clearly the most significant, obvious, and strongly corroborated detail is what YOU are choosing not to believe.

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 05:45 PM (GMT)
Why not Halliburton?

Every plane that has ever crashed at one point was just inches off the ground before it crashed.

buddy - March 2, 2007 05:46 PM (GMT)
Russel,
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 12:44 PM)
But the errors are irrelevant to the fact that they ALL place the plane on the north.

My point exactly. I didn't even have to read the other threads to see what was already said. :)

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 05:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:38 PM)

Yes - IF this film had been promoted as eyewitness testimony contrary to the official story that would be fine.

Yes - if questions had not been avoided that would be fine.

Yes - if there was proof the Citgo video was altered that would be fine


1. This is smoking gun testimony regardless of how much you deny it.

2. No questions were "avoided" and you have no basis for making that libelous statement.

3. YOU HAVE PROVEN YOURSELF THAT THE VERY SAME DATA WAS MANIPULATED!

Isn't ironic how you never made a big deal about this SERIOUS issue and are even completely ignoring it now so you can continue to use this data that you believe was supplied by the perpetrators as evidence against Robert's quadruple corroborated placement of the plane.

How is this type of behavior logical for an honest 9/11 truth movement researcher???

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 05:51 PM (GMT)
Then we can go back and look at Lloyd's testimony again.

The error of his remembering the large piece of the pole is no longer significant.

What is significant is that we KNOW the direction and exact location of the cab and where it stopped.

He put the aircraft in front of him.

That is south of the Citgo.

Case closed!

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 05:53 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 05:49 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:38 PM)

Yes - IF this film had been promoted as eyewitness testimony contrary to the official story that would be fine.

Yes - if questions had not been avoided that would be fine.

Yes - if there was proof the Citgo video was altered that would be fine


1. This is smoking gun testimony regardless of how much you deny it.

2. No questions were "avoided" and you have no basis for making that libelous statement.

3. YOU HAVE PROVEN YOURSELF THAT THE VERY SAME DATA WAS MANIPULATED!

Isn't ironic how you never made a big deal about this SERIOUS issue and are even completely ignoring it now so you can continue to use this data that you believe was supplied by the perpetrators as evidence against Robert's quadruple corroborated placement of the plane.

How is this type of behavior logical for an honest 9/11 truth movement researcher???

Get Robert to view the Citgo video.

Ask him who ran into the store.

Have him sign a statement that the video was altered.

Take that statement to officials you trust and use this new evidence to start an investigation on the government altering 9/11 evidence.

Halliburton - March 2, 2007 05:54 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:45 PM)
Why not Halliburton?

Every plane that has ever crashed at one point was just inches off the ground before it crashed.

most reports have AA77(?) 20-80 feet above the highway right in front of pentagon.... how could it drop down inches from pentalawn, without hitting gaurdrails, or poles near middle? arent the poles about 40 feet tall? the video doesnt look like its 40 feet above ground..... only thing that can drop so low so fast, would be global hawk/A-3... IMO

buddy - March 2, 2007 06:00 PM (GMT)
Also another question I had after watching Pentacon: were there lightpoles that were not knocked down in the flight path of the plane on the north side of the Citgo?

If so, then that would mean that we had eyewitnesses see a plane that did not knock down poles in it's flight path, which could only happen if the plane was too high, or that the eyewitnesses were mistaken about where they saw the plane (or that they even saw a real plane, but let's not go there).

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 06:02 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:51 PM)
Then we can go back and look at Lloyd's testimony again.

The error of his remembering the large piece of the pole is no longer significant.

What is significant is that we KNOW the direction and exact location of the cab and where it stopped.

He put the aircraft in front of him.

That is south of the Citgo.

Case closed!

Haha!

Funny.

But quite incorrect.

Watch Lloyd's testimony again.

For those that haven't seen it it's currently available here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=89...technique&hl=en

Watch the "comic relief" part if you want a real laugh!


Lloyd claims he barely saw the plane. Clearly the most significant part of Lloyd's account is what came crashing through that windshield and what he "fell down" removing with help from the silent stranger.

But for some reason YOU refuse to believe this! haha!

Thanks for making my point even more clear.


Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 06:07 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (buddy @ Mar 2 2007, 06:00 PM)
Also another question I had after watching Pentacon: were there lightpoles that were not knocked down in the flight path of the plane on the north side of the Citgo?

If so, then that would mean that we had eyewitnesses see a plane that did not knock down poles in it's flight path, which could only happen if the plane was too high, or that the eyewitnesses were mistaken about where they saw the plane (or that they even saw a real plane, but let's not go there).

Here is an image that demonstrates the poles that were or were not downed in relation to the north of the station flight path and the wingspan of a 757.

user posted image

Halliburton - March 2, 2007 06:12 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 06:02 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:51 PM)
Then we can go back and look at Lloyd's testimony again.

The error of his remembering the large piece of the pole is no longer significant.

What is significant is that we KNOW the direction and exact location of the cab and where it stopped.

He put the aircraft in front of him.

That is south of the Citgo.

Case closed!

Haha!

Funny.

But quite incorrect.

Watch Lloyd's testimony again.

For those that haven't seen it it's currently available here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=89...technique&hl=en

Watch the "comic relief" part if you want a real laugh!


Lloyd claims he barely saw the plane. Clearly the most significant part of Lloyd's account is what came crashing through that windshield and what he "fell down" removing with help from the silent stranger.

But for some reason YOU refuse to believe this! haha!

Thanks for making my point even more clear.

HAHAHA....

the pole came into his windshield, he looked for the plane, ...there was no plane.. it was quiet...CLASSIC...lol

06:00 minutes

buddy - March 2, 2007 06:14 PM (GMT)
Lyte Trip, now that really adds to the fly-over argument in my mind. It would be nice to have solid evidence that a) there were lightpoles on the flight path on the north side and b) those poles were not knocked down. The graphic is good, but if there were something more official, that would be even better (maybe I just am not aware of it).

If eyewitnesses place the plane on a flight path north of the Citgo, and if there were lightpoles on that path that weren't knocked down, and if the plane could not drop fast enough past the lightpoles to hit the pentagon, then how could the plane have hit the pentagon without hitting the lightpoles?

Even if eyewitnesses saw the plane hit the building, how did not hit the lighpoles?

Hmm...maybe there is something to the fly over theory.

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 06:20 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (buddy @ Mar 2 2007, 06:14 PM)
Lyte Trip, now that really adds to the fly-over argument in my mind. It would be nice to have solid evidence that a) there were lightpoles on the flight path on the north side and B) those poles were not knocked down. The graphic is good, but if there were something more official, that would be even better (maybe I just am not aware of it).

If eyewitnesses place the plane on a flight path north of the Citgo, and if there were lightpoles on that path that weren't knocked down, and if the plane could not drop fast enough past the lightpoles to hit the pentagon, then how could the plane have hit the pentagon without hitting the lightpoles?

Even if eyewitnesses saw the plane hit the building, how did not hit the lighpoles?

Hmm...maybe there is something to the fly over theory.

Exactly.

You simply have to go through all of the photos from 9/11 and meticulously go over everything.

There are enough photos that this can be done definitively.

Even Russell will agree with the image.

Nobody on either side of the debate questions which poles were knocked down or still standing.

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 06:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:53 PM)

Get Robert to view the Citgo video.

Ask him who ran into the store.

Have him sign a statement that the video was altered.

Take that statement to officials you trust and use this new evidence to start an investigation on the government altering 9/11 evidence.

I missed this.

He keeps repeating this lunacy over and over as if it's the least bit reasonable, logical, or has any bearing whatsoever in regards to Robert's testimony.

Robert's quadruple corroborated north of the citgo testimony is sufficient to take to officials and try to get an investigation into the government altering 9/11 evidence but Russell will DISMISS Robert's sworn testimony unless Robert signs a statement specifically accusing his bosses of altering testimony!

This is absurd!

Robert is shy and scared. The only reason we were able to get the north of the citgo testimony out of him at all is because he didn't understand the implications of what he saw.

It is not his responsibility to identify all of the blurry unrecognizable images in that video. This does NOT preclude his already sworn testimony of where he was and where he placed the plane.

But Russell will continue to use this insane logical fallacy as a means to discredit Robert and he will search far and wide to create other logical fallacies to discredit the other witnesses as well.


I didn't think I would have to do this but Russell is forcing me to.

QUOTE


Logical fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In philosophy, a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which has a valid logical form, but is false due to one or more of its premises being false.

The term fallacy is often used more generally to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, whether it be a formal or an informal fallacy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy




Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 06:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 05:53 PM)

Get Robert to view the Citgo video.

Ask him who ran into the store.

Have him sign a statement that the video was altered.

Take that statement to officials you trust and use this new evidence to start an investigation on the government altering 9/11 evidence.

I missed this.

He keeps repeating this lunacy over and over as if it's the least bit reasonable, logical, or has any bearing whatsoever in regards to Robert's testimony.

Robert's quadruple corroborated north of the citgo testimony is sufficient to take to officials and try to get an investigation into the government altering 9/11 evidence but Russell will DISMISS Robert's sworn testimony unless Robert signs a statement specifically accusing his bosses of altering testimony!

This is absurd!

Robert is shy and scared. The only reason we were able to get the north of the citgo testimony out of him at all is because he didn't understand the implications of what he saw.

It is not his responsibility to identify all of the blurry unrecognizable images in that video. This does NOT preclude his already sworn testimony of where he was and where he placed the plane.

But Russell will continue to use this insane logical fallacy as a means to discredit Robert and he will search far and wide to create other logical fallacies to discredit the other witnesses as well.


I didn't think I would have to do this but Russell is forcing me to.

QUOTE


Logical fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In philosophy, a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which has a valid logical form, but is false due to one or more of its premises being false.

The term fallacy is often used more generally to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, whether it be a formal or an informal fallacy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

You sure get forced into a lot of things.

You are the first one to be forced into making a film that I am aware of except for hostage videos.

Take responsibility.

How many times did Merc talk to Robert before you filmed him live?

Are you willing to stand by your statement that he had no knowledge of how this testimony contradicts the official story before the government allowed him to tell the story even though they edited his actions in the video?

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 06:46 PM (GMT)
So not only is EVERY SINGLE ONE of Russell's arguments agains the north of the citgo claim a logical fallacy but he is accusing me of being DECEPTIVE for not interrogating Robert about the video that Russell himself has deemed to have been manipulated by the perpetrators!


But yet he refuses to approach Robert with these questions himself in favor of spending hours on end in this forum trying to cast doubt/neutralize his and all of the other citgo witnesses testimony.

Disgusting.

Quest - March 2, 2007 06:47 PM (GMT)
Russell,

Not trying to be a pest but would you mind giving me your opinion on why the you find the 2 policemen's accounts, on which side of the Citgo gas station the plane they saw flew, untrustworthy?

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 06:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 06:46 PM)
So not only is EVERY SINGLE ONE of Russell's arguments agains the north of the citgo claim a logical fallacy but he is accusing me of being DECEPTIVE for not interrogating Robert about the video that Russell himself has deemed to have been manipulated by the perpetrators!


But yet he refuses to approach Robert with these questions himself in favor of spending hours on end in this forum trying to cast doubt/neutralize his and all of the other citgo witnesses testimony.

Disgusting.

Can you please show me where I have ever claimed to believe the Citgo video to be altered?

I documented a missing camera, that is true.

But go back and study. Is there a camera on the south side of the Citgo that didn't show on the video monitor?

How many cameras did they have?

How many screens are shown on the video?

Please do not try and deceive people that I have ever claimed the video to be altered.

The more you do this kind of stuff - the more interesting this becomes.

Lyte Trip - March 2, 2007 06:51 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 06:44 PM)

Are you willing to stand by your statement that he had no knowledge of how this testimony contradicts the official story before the government allowed him to tell the story even though they edited his actions in the video?

I took responsibility while you wussed out.

You continue to wuss out in favor of demonizing us and the witnesses.

I didn't say he had no knowledge I said he didn't understand the implications.

Neither did Chad or Bill.

Yes Merc talked with him a few times but he didn't explain all of the physical details of exactly what his account meant. He was not shown any images or explained all the details about the light poles and all the physical damage.

Hell we're getting people who watch our movie and STILL don't understand how damaging the north of the citgo claim is.

Stop your BS discredit campaign now Russell.

Take a break for the weekend or something.

Sheesh.

Quest - March 2, 2007 06:51 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Russell,

Not trying to be a pest but would you mind giving me your opinion on why the you find the 2 policemen's accounts, on which side of the Citgo gas station the plane they saw flew, untrustworthy?


bump.


Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 06:53 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Quest @ Mar 2 2007, 06:47 PM)
Russell,

Not trying to be a pest but would you mind giving me your opinion on why the you find the 2 policemen's accounts, on which side of the Citgo gas station the plane they saw flew, untrustworthy?

Quest,

Do you feel it is appropriate for admins on the same board to disagree with each other in light of the fact we have the same overall goals?

I feel it is inappropriate.

If you wish to take a personal stand with these guys against me here, please clear this with Dylan in the admin forum.

If Dylan feels it is in the best interest of these boards then I will continue my discussion and answer your questions.

Russell

Russell Pickering - March 2, 2007 06:54 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Mar 2 2007, 06:51 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Mar 2 2007, 06:44 PM)

Are you willing to stand by your statement that he had no knowledge of how this testimony contradicts the official story before the government allowed him to tell the story even though they edited his actions in the video?

I took responsibility while you wussed out.

You continue to wuss out in favor of demonizing us and the witnesses.

I didn't say he had no knowledge I said he didn't understand the implications.

Neither did Chad or Bill.

Yes Merc talked with him a few times but he didn't explain all of the physical details of exactly what his account meant. He was not shown any images or explained all the details about the light poles and all the physical damage.

Hell we're getting people who watch our movie and STILL don't understand how damaging the north of the citgo claim is.

Stop your BS discredit campaign now Russell.

Take a break for the weekend or something.

Sheesh.

Stopping will not happen no matter how much you wish it to.





Hosted for free by zIFBoards