Cit Did Not Invent The North Side Claim.

Cit Did Not Invent The North Side Claim.

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Mar 15 2007, 11:27 PM #1

Again.....

The movement is not split on whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

This data is simply threatening to skeptics and the few people that worship the 757 impact conspiracy theory so we are under heavy attack in this forum because we have a strong presence here and this forum has a high tolerance for agitators.

Lagasse has asserted the north side claim since day one.

Robert has also asserted this since day one as confirmed by his manager.

Brooks has never stated differently.

CIT is merely reporting what the witnesses saw.

We believe in a flyover because it's the only logical conclusion after obtaining this testimony and because of the reports of a plane/jet that veered off as soon as there was an explosion at the pentagon.

It's illogical to suggest the citgo witnesses are all so ridiculoulsly mistaken.

Stop making this about Lyte Trip or Merc or CIT or The PentaCon or even the flyover hypothesis.

This is about Edward, Robert, Chad, and Bill's testimony.

CIT did not lie about what they said.

If they had said the plane was on the south side and clipped the light poles we would have accepted it and reported it.

But they didn't.

So you can choose to understand how important this testimony is in our quest to uncover 9/11 lies or you can choose to continue to make this about CIT in order to obfuscate the true implications of their testimony.

We know that the bulk of the truth movement will choose the former which is clear from the overall response that we have received.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

fretwire
Advanced Member
fretwire
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 07:14 PM

Mar 15 2007, 11:32 PM #2

Your comments are misleading. If you watch loose change again, you will remember that Dylan hints it could have been a missile. The flash movie you posted in another thread has witnesses saying they heard a missile.

You have interviewed witnesses saying they saw a plane, not a missile. And you hypothesize it flying over the pentagon to support your claims.

How can you see a plane and hear a missile? That doesn't make any sense.
Quote
Like
Share

TruthInc
Advanced Member
TruthInc
Advanced Member
Joined: Mar 15 2007, 01:30 PM

Mar 15 2007, 11:33 PM #3

Lyte.
Stop running away from threads and posting new ones.
You arent stupid, maybe delusional, but you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of your potential audience to try to pull this off.
Quote
Like
Share

lookinaround
Advanced Member
lookinaround
Advanced Member
Joined: Nov 17 2006, 03:17 PM

Mar 15 2007, 11:40 PM #4

TruthInc @ Mar 15 2007, 06:33 PM wrote: Lyte.
Stop running away from threads and posting new ones.
Hell.... stop posting period and get that groundbreaking testimony out into the public!!!
Quote
Like
Share

Halliburton
Advanced Member
Halliburton
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 23 2007, 09:28 PM

Mar 16 2007, 12:16 AM #5

hey lyte, pretty pathetic to be attacked by JREFS on the loose change forum, and the ringleader is an admin. hang in there , we are behind you all the way.
Quote
Like
Share

lookinaround
Advanced Member
lookinaround
Advanced Member
Joined: Nov 17 2006, 03:17 PM

Mar 16 2007, 02:13 AM #6

I'm not attacking anyone. I just happen to think discussing the groundbreaking testimony here on this forum isn't doing a hell of a lot.

Get it to people who can use it and do something with it.

Somewhere say... like a courtroom.
Quote
Like
Share

TheLight
Advanced Member
TheLight
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 21 2007, 03:34 AM

Mar 16 2007, 02:19 AM #7

Bravo, lookinaround.

You know, if Lyte and Merc had the "ground-breaking, 100% irrefutable" evidence they claim they had, they shouldn't be sitting on the effing Loose Change Forum debating it. What a waste of time if you've uncovered the crime of the century.

They should be calling the media, releasing papers to the authorities, with all their raw data and such. Actually, if they were truly serious about what they were doing, they wouldn't have released it as a "film" in the first place. THey should have spent those months putting together their info for the proper authorities.

Instead it seems the most they've done is shamelessly self promoted their film. Face it, they want to be Loose Change 3. It's pretty obvious.

If I though 911 was an inside job I would be pretty pissed with them right now for sitting on this for so long.
Quote
Like
Share

lookinaround
Advanced Member
lookinaround
Advanced Member
Joined: Nov 17 2006, 03:17 PM

Mar 16 2007, 02:22 AM #8

TheLight @ Mar 15 2007, 09:19 PM wrote: Bravo, lookinaround.

You know, if Lyte and Merc had the "ground-breaking, 100% irrefutable" evidence they claim they had, they shouldn't be sitting on the effing Loose Change Forum debating it. What a waste of time if you've uncovered the crime of the century.

They should be calling the media, releasing papers to the authorities, with all their raw data and such. Actually, if they were truly serious about what they were doing, they wouldn't have released it as a "film" in the first place. THey should have spent those months putting together their info for the proper authorities.

Instead it seems the most they've done is shamelessly self promoted their film. Face it, they want to be Loose Change 3. It's pretty obvious.

If I though 911 was an inside job I would be pretty pissed with them right now for sitting on this for so long.
What's even more interesting is that there are still two versions of The Pentacon left to come.

... Think they're gonna' be released before or after the grand jury?
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Mar 16 2007, 04:42 AM #9

The fact that media and authorities marginalize and ignore all evidence regarding 9/11 is not new or unexpected.

We have never claimed that anything different would happen in regards to this evidence.

But that doesn't make it any less of a smoking gun.

Why would you be sarcastic and antagonistic about any of that?

If you were part of the truth movement you would understand and empathize with this frustrating fact.

Obviously you are not part of the truth movement.

If you fail to understand the implications of this testimony perhaps you should watch it again.

CIT did not make up the north side claim.

It's what the eyewitnesses saw.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

lookinaround
Advanced Member
lookinaround
Advanced Member
Joined: Nov 17 2006, 03:17 PM

Mar 16 2007, 06:01 AM #10

Lyte Trip @ Mar 16 2007, 12:42 AM wrote:The fact that media and authorities marginalize and ignore all evidence regarding 9/11 is not new or unexpected.
So is there a game plan? I ask this to the truth movement as a whole. What's going to be done to turn this tide?
We have never claimed that anything different would happen in regards to this evidence.

But that doesn't make it any less of a smoking gun.
Well yeah... it kinda does. The whole "tree falls in forest, no one around, does it make a sound" thing. I think what you're beginning to realize is that people are/will treat this for what it is. Eye-witness testimony that is 5 years old. You only call it a smoking gun because, well... you can. It really doesn't mean anything in the real world unless that information can somehow be used.
Why would you be sarcastic and antagonistic about any of that?
If I'm sarcastic and antognistic it's only because I've grown tired of the rhetoric. I'm genuinely curious to know what's going to be done with all this information the movement has compiled over the last 4 or 5 years. When will you have enough? What's the goal?
If you were part of the truth movement you would understand and empathize with this frustrating fact.
If you truly had a smoking gun, it wouldn't be this frustrating.
Obviously you are not part of the truth movement.
Correct.
If you fail to understand the implications of this testimony perhaps you should watch it again.
I'm not failing to understand anything except your excitement and enthusiasm over this testimony.
CIT did not make up the north side claim.

It's what the eyewitnesses saw.
Right. The only 4 credible witnesses in the area of the Pentagon that day. .... Okay.
Quote
Like
Share

Citizen Merc
Advanced Member
Citizen Merc
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 23 2007, 05:43 AM

Mar 16 2007, 06:33 AM #11

Lyte Trip @ Mar 16 2007, 12:42 AM wrote:The fact that media and authorities marginalize and ignore all evidence regarding 9/11 is not new or unexpected.
So is there a game plan? I ask this to the truth movement as a whole. What's going to be done to turn this tide?

It's being done.
We have never claimed that anything different would happen in regards to this evidence.

But that doesn't make it any less of a smoking gun.
Well yeah... it kinda does. The whole "tree falls in forest, no one around, does it make a sound" thing. I think what you're beginning to realize is that people are/will treat this for what it is. Eye-witness testimony that is 5 years old. You only call it a smoking gun because, well... you can. It really doesn't mean anything in the real world unless that information can somehow be used.
Again, Jrefer. Lagasse said North side in 2003. So uh that's 2-3 years later. And your point is irrelevant, because no one has ever asked witnesses which side of the gas station the plane flew on.

It's been two weeks. Relax, it's just starting.

It's why you're here. Obsessed with every development. :D

Why would you be sarcastic and antagonistic about any of that?
If I'm sarcastic and antognistic it's only because I've grown tired of the rhetoric. I'm genuinely curious to know what's going to be done with all this information the movement has compiled over the last 4 or 5 years. When will you have enough? What's the goal?
It's never enough. Not until there is an investigation into finding the real perps and trying those who tried to cover it up.
If you were part of the truth movement you would understand and empathize with this frustrating fact.
If you truly had a smoking gun, it wouldn't be this frustrating.
And if we didn't have a smoking gun, you wouldn't be here:D
Obviously you are not part of the truth movement.
Correct.
Then your intentions are transparent.
If you fail to understand the implications of this testimony perhaps you should watch it again.
I'm not failing to understand anything except your excitement and enthusiasm over this testimony.
You are failing to accept it. That is the problem.
CIT did not make up the north side claim.

It's what the eyewitnesses saw.
Right. The only 4 credible witnesses in the area of the Pentagon that day. .... Okay.
The only 4?

Oh no I am sure there aRe many more.

Are you going to stop being anonymous and prove us wrong?

AGAIN, HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES BEEN ASKED WHICH SIDE OF THE GAS STATION THE PLANE FLEW ON???
Quote
Like
Share

lookinaround
Advanced Member
lookinaround
Advanced Member
Joined: Nov 17 2006, 03:17 PM

Mar 16 2007, 06:48 AM #12

Citizen Merc @ Mar 16 2007, 02:33 AM wrote: The only 4?

Oh no I am sure there aRe many more.

Are you going to stop being anonymous and prove us wrong?

AGAIN, HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES BEEN ASKED WHICH SIDE OF THE GAS STATION THE PLANE FLEW ON???
You've already been proven wrong Merc. Many eyewitnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon (even yours). The fact that you and Lyte consistently ignore that fact or try to explain it away is tragic, because that will be brought up in court (should this ever go to trial).

And witnesses weren't asked what side of the gas station the plane flew on because they reported the plane hitting the poles, thereby making the Citgo an unnecessary question.

And where are your "many more"? .... Are they coming out in the Researchers Edition?

PS - What does my anonymity have to do with anything? You can find out stuff about me if it's that important to you.
Quote
Like
Share

Citizen Merc
Advanced Member
Citizen Merc
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 23 2007, 05:43 AM

Mar 16 2007, 07:09 AM #13

lookinaround @ Mar 16 2007, 06:48 AM wrote:
Citizen Merc @ Mar 16 2007, 02:33 AM wrote: The only 4?

Oh no I am sure there aRe many more.

Are you going to stop being anonymous and prove us wrong?

AGAIN, HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES BEEN ASKED WHICH SIDE OF THE GAS STATION THE PLANE FLEW ON???
You've already been proven wrong Merc. Many eyewitnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon (even yours). The fact that you and Lyte consistently ignore that fact or try to explain it away is tragic, because that will be brought up in court (should this ever go to trial).

And witnesses weren't asked what side of the gas station the plane flew on because they reported the plane hitting the poles, thereby making the Citgo an unnecessary question.

And where are your "many more"? .... Are they coming out in the Researchers Edition?

PS - What does my anonymity have to do with anything? You can find out stuff about me if it's that important to you.
Please provide your witnesses.

Then prove they were where they say they were.

Then ask them which side of the gas station the plane flew on.

Again, dude. We went all out, even some of your published "witnesses" on Rt 27 will not commit to seeing poles being hit. :D

When I said "many more", I meant I am sure there are many more.

Your anonymity has everything to do with it. Get rid of it, and get out there and prove your impact.
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Mar 16 2007, 05:59 PM #15

Yes CIT is Merc and Lyte.

No the testimony/evidnece presented in the film is not us.

We did not make it up, invent, lead, or coerce it.

You agree with this right Russell?

We do not know for sure how they staged all of the physical damage including the trailer but it makes no sense to suggest that it's illogical for the perpetrators to do this while simultaneously suggesting they completely staged a covert controlled demolition of 3 massive skyscrapers in new york.

You do believe it was a controlled demolition don't you?

Didn't they stage a natural collapse of these buildings?

Is that illogical?
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Woody Box
Advanced Member
Woody Box
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 26 2006, 06:11 PM

Mar 16 2007, 08:56 PM #16

Russell Pickering @ Mar 16 2007, 04:00 PM wrote: But it is logical to suggest that a 20 ton generator pinned in on all sides was removed during the night and replaced with a prefabricated one with damage including a flap track carved into the top?
Russell,

I have to jump in here because I've heard this kind of secondary questions so often in this discussion - why should they've done it this way and not the other way.

These questions concerning the handling of the cover-up may have their merits, but they are in no way suited as a counterweight against primary evidence: three first-hand accounts of eyewitnesses.

Just my 2 cents.
Accuracy*Honesty*Humility = POWER 911woodybox.blogspot.com
Quote
Like
Share

Woody Box
Advanced Member
Woody Box
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 26 2006, 06:11 PM

Mar 16 2007, 09:06 PM #17

A REAL counterweight would be (for example) three witnesses at the citgo pointing with their finger to the South, where the official flight path runs. This would nullify the pentacon witnesses, of course.

All other arguments presented here by the anti-CITs are way to weak to nullify them.
Accuracy*Honesty*Humility = POWER 911woodybox.blogspot.com
Quote
Like
Share

SDG guy
Advanced Member
SDG guy
Advanced Member
Joined: Jan 17 2007, 06:32 PM

Mar 16 2007, 09:23 PM #18

Woody Box @ Mar 16 2007, 09:06 PM wrote: A REAL counterweight would be (for example) three witnesses at the citgo pointing with their finger to the South, where the official flight path runs. This would nullify the pentacon witnesses, of course.

All other arguments presented here by the anti-CITs are way to weak to nullify them.
Well then, would a REAL counterweight to their argument be many more than 3 eyewitnesses who claim they SAW the plane impact the Pentagon from the "official" flight path even though they weren't at the Citgo?
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Mar 16 2007, 09:33 PM #19

SDG guy @ Mar 16 2007, 09:23 PM wrote:
Woody Box @ Mar 16 2007, 09:06 PM wrote: A REAL counterweight would be (for example) three witnesses at the citgo pointing with their finger to the South, where the official flight path runs. This would nullify the pentacon witnesses, of course.

All other arguments presented here by the anti-CITs are way to weak to nullify them.
Well then, would a REAL counterweight to their argument be many more than 3 eyewitnesses who claim they SAW the plane impact the Pentagon from the "official" flight path even though they weren't at the Citgo?
You haven't been paying attention.

Even the witnesses that we present believe the plane hit the building so that claim would not counter them at all.

But as even you must agree.....if they are correct in their north side claim this is impossible.

Since they all saw the plane in the same place, and since nobody directly contradicts them, and since there are numerous questions about the physical damage to begin with, and since we already know that 9/11 was a massive worldwide psychological operation, it is disingenous for any member of the truth movement to automatically dismiss this testimony that proves 9/11 was an inside job.

You are part of the truth movement right?
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Mar 16 2007, 09:39 PM #20

Furthermore......if they are correct in their north side claim it not only proves that 9/11 was an inside job but this also makes it logical to suggest that some witness accounts were planted and/or fabricated.

So a few published accounts that directly support the official flight path must be heavily scrutinized.

There aren't many.........


But in light of this testimony filmed on location by eyewitnesses who have PROOF they were present at the time..

The same standard should be held for witnesses that support the official story which we all know to be fraud.

Let's see how many of them are willing to go on camera on location to support their accounts.

BTW......what witnesses besides Frank Probst and Lloyd directly and definitively support only the official flight path?
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: