Is Lisa Jefferson lying?

[stateofgrace]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2006/005/3.16.html

Simple question, no tangents, no avoiding what this lady said.

Is Lisa Jefferson lying about her telephone conversation?

Yes?

No?

[John White]

Dont I just Love a dualistic mindset

Has it occurred to you that a person can tell the truth but their reality in which they experiance that truth could be a false one?

Was she on the plane? Did she see events unfold with her own eyes? Or was she sitting in an office talking to a voice on a telephone?

Therefore, is this proof of what happened on the flight?

Well it is if you want it to be.... but its really nothing more than circumstantial evidance... maybe she talked to who she thought she talked to... maybe not. She doesnt know. And neither do you

In the meanwhile, wheres the plane? Wheres the crash investigation? Wheres the full release of the audio from the black box? The tape of the call?

Stop excusing an administration that creates stories in place of releasing evidance: Stop defending a throughly discredited whitewashed 9/11 Commission (yes, critics dont like to talk about that, do they? Refute the Jersey girls info if you can). Honour Truth. Honour Justice

And support the campaign for a real exhaustative investigation

Then we will know

Simple enough, ain't it?

If we loved cold truth more than the comfort of warm delusion, we might save a whole load of lives too. When the "War for Empire" is in Iran, Syria, Korea, Venezuala and who knows where across the rest of the world, it might be you and yours you lose: in fact, it almost certainly will be

It all depends on how strong as a people the citizens of the West are: we will get exactly what we deserve as a reflection of that

[stateofgrace]

Emmmm very interesting.

So is the conversation real nor not? It really simply, no need for hog wash to try and avoid it.

Yes or No?

[DeFecToR]

[chek]

[stateofgrace]

If the question has changed it is though a simple grammatical error and no other reason.

I will explain the reason behind the question though. I have seen this been discussed on another forum. On this forum a truth seeker accused this lady of lying and went on to state her book was a pack of lies.

This provoked a furious response from other members.

So I bring the same question here. Lisa Jefferson spoke to Todd Beamer at length, they said the Lords prayer together (or so Lisa Jefferson says)

So is Lisa Jefferson lying Yes/no?

It's not a trick question. It is question you must face and provide answers to if you believe that there were no hijackers onboard Flight 93.

The question remains.

Is Lisa Jefferson lying?

[chek]

[stateofgrace]

Once again Chek stays true to his conspiracy masters and avoids the question. This is a specific topic within the context of Flight 93. It is not an excuse to try to introduce things you deem relevant. It is your chance to answer this one specific question.

(CT Tactic number 1, if in doubt at all, simply try to change the subject and draw the questioner into a totally different line of debate).

“Nobody knows for sure”?

Really? so Lisa Jefferson doesn't know for sure.

Answer the question or keep out of this thread.

Is Lisa Jefferson lying?

Option 1.............Yes
Option 2..............No.

Now try a little bit harder I know you are busy dodging the MIB who shadow your every movement but have a stab at the above options.

Edit...The purpose of this thread is not to determine whether you believe Flight 93 was shot down, but whether you believe there was any hijackers onboard this flight.

[chek]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Isn't this like saying...' was Mrs Bingham lying when she said her son phoned her from flight 93 and said "hello mom this is Mark Bingham..." '?

Were the Pentagon lying when they said there was no CCTV security film of what hit that obscure side of the facility 9/11, YES OR NO? and NO hedging.

[Ignatz]

[DeFecToR]

If someone tells me a lie, and i mistakenly believe it, does that make me a liar if i pass the lie on?

[pepik]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

[chek]

[pepik]

Sorry, that makes no sense. How would you circle something moving at several hundred miles per hour?

[DeFecToR]

[chek]

[stateofgrace]

Once again the Cters miss the point of the question and try to avoid it. The best one of them comes up with “well maybe she was lied to ", another comes up with the equally lame “I don’t know, that’s why we need a new investigation”

They base this on their hunch.

As any one of them spoken to Lisa Jefferson, even once?

As anyone of them even tried to talk to Lisa Jefferson, even once?

As anyone of them ever talked to her co workers of that day, even once?

As anyone of them called anybody that was involved in the Todd beamer call, even once?

Have I? No, But then again I don’t doubt her story. The Cters do. So they dismiss out of hand Mrs Jefferson, as maybe she was lied to or they don't know.

This is the need for the further investigation “We don't know".

Well let me enlighten you, all you have to do is read her book and you will know. This woman was involved in 911, she is victim of this, and she has given her account which is dismissed in favour of BS theories about no hijackers and fake calls.

This call and others from Flight 93 was used in the most important case this century and presented as evidence before a jury in a court of Law. It was accepted as evidence as such is accepted as fact.

So thus they choose not to address the very real evidence that is presented but would prefer it simply to be buried in BS theories.

What is forgotten by all these BS theories is there were very real people involved, very real people whose testimony backs up the official version. So they are to be explained away by further nonsense. This is where the cters walks the thin line between trying desperately not to come out and say outright these witnesses are lying. This would cause deep offence, so they make it all up, “I don’t know”, “maybe they were lied to” or maybe they were bribed”. This is the justification that allows them to forget simple mundane things such as facts. Their call for another inquiry will always go unanswered because the answers are already there. They have been provided by Lisa Jefferson, the first time around. There is no need to keep asking this question.

"I don't know that's why we need another inquiry" is no longer valid.

Simply dismissing evidence out of hand and replacing it with a twisted version is not an option. This women is not a spokeswomen for the Government, she had a thirteen minute call with Todd beamer on Flight 93. He told her the plane had been hijacked.

So is she lying? Yes or no.

[DeFecToR]

You forgot to include my question there SOG.

[stateofgrace]

I thought I did deflector; tell you what I will repost and high light it for you.

Once again the Cters miss the point of the question and try to avoid it. The best one of them comes up with “well maybe she was lied to ", another comes up with the equally lame “I don’t know, that’s why we need a new investigation”

They base this on their hunch.

As any one of them spoken to Lisa Jefferson, even once?

As anyone of them even tried to talk to Lisa Jefferson, even once?

As anyone of them ever talked to her co workers of that day, even once?

As anyone of them called anybody that was involved in the Todd beamer call, even once?

Have I? No, But then again I don’t doubt her story. The Cters do. So they dismiss out of hand Mrs Jefferson, as maybe she was lied to or they don't know.

This is the need for the further investigation “We don't know".

Well let me enlighten you, all you have to do is read her book and you will know. This woman was involved in 911, she is victim of this, and she has given her account which is dismissed in favour of BS theories about no hijackers and fake calls.

This call and others from Flight 93 was used in the most important case this century and presented as evidence before a jury in a court of Law. It was accepted as evidence as such is accepted as fact.

So thus they choose not to address the very real evidence that is presented but would prefer it simply to be buried in BS theories.

What is forgotten by all these BS theories is there were very real people involved, very real people whose testimony backs up the official version. So they are to be explained away by further nonsense. This is where the cters walks the thin line between trying desperately not to come out and say outright these witnesses are lying. This would cause deep offence, so they make it all up, “I don’t know”, “maybe they were lied to” or maybe they were bribed”. This is the justification that allows them to forget simple mundane things such as facts. Their call for another inquiry will always go unanswered because the answers are already there. They have been provided by Lisa Jefferson, the first time around. There is no need to keep asking this question.

"I don't know that's why we need another inquiry" is no longer valid.

Simply dismissing evidence out of hand and replacing it with a twisted version is not an option. This women is not a spokeswomen for the Government, she had a thirteen minute call with Todd beamer on Flight 93. He told her the plane had been hijacked.

So is she lying? Yes or no.

Edited for typo.

[DeFecToR]

[marky 54]

stateofgrace can you please explain how we are suppose to know if she was lieing or not? and why its so hard to comprehend that people might simply not know the answer to your question. would you like me to lie and guess? just for the sake of you getting an answer. i have never seen a voting poll that dosnt have a 'unsure','dont know' option before, so your question sucked, especially as you ignored all the people who did answer your question and said they dont know(which means ct'ers didnt ignore or avoid your thread and question). what do you think stateofgrace was she lieing or not or are you unsure? im unsure as i have no way of knowing. now why dont you answer the question, if your gonna accuse people of avoiding it just be nice to know where you stand on the question.

[chek]

The thing is that the 'Let's roll' flight is now as big a myth as the Alamo, and equally airbrushed as a version of history, to make lardass*d dingbats feel good about themselves.
Just don't enquire too deeply into how much of it is true.

[aggle-rithm]

[stateofgrace]

The failure to answer this one simple question is typical of the denier’s mindset.

“The official version is wrong “they scream and cry and demand a reinvestigation.

The failure to recognise or even acknowledge that the official version is that this plane was hijacked. This simple fact is backed up by many phone calls received by family members. Importantly for this discussion being perused in this thread it is backed up 100% by Lisa Jefferson.

She has said and continues to say she spoke to Todd Beamer.

Mrs Jefferson is but one part of the evidence, witnesses and testimony that make up the official version. The statements and sworn testimony all contribute to the official version. Not one of them contradicts the fact that this plane was hijacked. Mrs Jefferson said this fives years ago; her story has not changed because it is based on real events and facts. Her recollection of this event ties in exactly and perfectly with the other calls and as been accepted as fact.

So how do the deniers put a spin on it," well maybe” or “I don't know " or " maybe it should be all reinvestigated".

FACT it as been investigated.
FACT Lisa Jefferson was part of that investigation.

The phone call with Todd beamer is now, whether the deniers like it are not accepted as fact. Or you could believe the X file style fantasies of the deniers. That all these calls were faked by some special voice morphing technology and all those who received them were fooled into believing them by some secret agents.

You could even believe what the cretin Dylan Avery believes about the Todd Beamer Call and Lisa Jefferson saying she heard him say “Lets Roll". That being it was a war cry.

Or you could accept within the Official version of what happened to this plane, there are many credible, honest witnesses who through no fault of there own got caught up in a dreadful event. These people have, over the last five years maintained what they heard and stood by what they said originally.

So Has Lisa Jefferson.

Despite all the BS charges of voice morphing, fake phones call, this Lady as displayed a dignity and quality that those who question her have none of. She did something, not one of the deniers could possibly imagine, she tried to help Todd Beamer. In the final moments of this mans life she talked to him and comforted him.

So once again.

Is Lisa Jefferson lying? Yes/no.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

You'd have to be a mindreader to answer SOG's question (I'm always suspicious when the neocons spin us these stories served with bucketloads of sentimentality) BUT you don't have to be a mindreader to answer the question...were the Pentagon telling the truth when they said, directly after 9/11, that they had NO CCTV security footage of whatever hit the pentagon ?

[chipmunk stew]

[stateofgrace]

[chek]

Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe this would help her decide.
Or maybe not.
And hell, by now she's been on Oprah.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html#coroner_bodies

Pay particular attention to the known authentic 'plane crash' photos and the blowing up old ammo photos.

STOP PRESS: The model of digital camera the alleged and totally unexpected 'smoking plane' photo was taken with (thus showing it looks nothing like a plane crash) has now been found to have IMAGE EDITING SOFTWARE on it, and is therefore not to be trusted.

The fact that the 'image editing software amounts to panning and cropping is entirely unconvenient, but hopefully the implication is enough to mislead any passers by that in 2001 a digital equivalent of Pixar Studios was bundled with the camera.

This aspect of 911 was completely new to me yesterday, yet already on even cursory examination it stinks, and this regime is building 'History' on it.
Ah well, you know what they say about anything built on weak foundations.