Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
did any of you guys even READ the rebuttal to catherder?
Yes.
If you'd like, to make it more simple, you could respond to each of this points in a separate post.
Item One
The article by Joe Quinn, and the follow-up drama inspired my emergence from a long silence with this post -->
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Item Two
And I referenced Joe Quinn's piece in this response within the taxi thread -->
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then, since you seem to be presenting yourself as an advocate of Joe Quinn, if you don't mind, I have some specific questions about his article. It
would be better if Joe were here to respond, but I assume you won't mind doing so in his stead.
Item Three
In his intro, he writes -->
The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory,
the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the
official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article.
Why must he assume such an unprofessional tone when attempting to deliver an analysis of a popular contra-conspiracy article? Is he/you not aware that
credibility is first gauged by apparent professionalism? Could you please help me understand why this tone is adopted? Thanks.
Item Four
Further in his "blue text" additions to the CatHerder article -->
The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost
everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder
Can you show us where there was a claim that everything
"folded up and flew inside the building?" In these discussions here, I've seen lots
of photographs and analysis of debris on the lawn that is indicative of pieces from a possible passenger airline.
Item Five
Again, in his "blue text" additions, he provides this commentary -->
Conclusion? The tail fin of a Boeing 757 did not strike this area.
What does that suggest? That a Boeing 757 was not involved in the attack.
Is that logical enough?
Can you explain in what way this conclusion was arrived? It's certainly logical to assume that, the tail section being at the rear, inertia and
kinetic energy of impact was much different than at the nose. If we suppose that a passenger airline struck the building, the tail section would have
impacted with
much less energy than the nose that supposedly created the initial hole. So a smaller-"softer"-lighter tail section would
certainly create less damage than the nose.
Item Six
Also in the blue text, a subject touched upon in this thread -->
What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the
aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon.
He seems very sure of himself in saying, the spools were "clearly untouched". Could you please post the "before" pictures he used in his research
that allowed him to come to such an assured statement?
There is much more, but I think this will give us an excellent starting point in getting back to Joe Quinn's article. Thanks in advance for helping
to analyze these points.
G.
