Originally posted by Aldo Marquis
You mean the debris primarily centered near he helipad, the little scraps that were more than likely blown from the "storage trailers"?
No the debris that was scattered all through out the lawn. And the debris from light poles and taxi cab on the roads that you claim were planted as well.
Calls? As in more than one? The only one I remember is from Barbara Olsen and that account from her hubby is highly problematic. Not to mention, we have further proof that phones were deactivated prior to 9/11.
You're forgetting Renee May. And you thinking the phone call is problematic? So the recordings were made of her and she must have been in on it too now? She killed herself to be part of this caper? Her husband played along with her death to be part of that caper? Or did they manage to clone her voice so well that all her family members were fooled? Or are the family members in on it too?
And sweeny's family is in on it too I suppose?
Where do you people come from? Show me the bodies. Show me the parts being matched to mx logs. Not 6 years after. Show me within the months following the event.
There are pictures on the trail site. There are the DNA results. There are the testimonies form the rescuers. There are the belongings that have been confirmed by the family members (which are often used to identify people). Do you have proof that these family members, the many DNA testing companies, and all the people who handled bodies, are all in on this caper too?
You can believe whatever you want. Because apparently you do. Stop setting up weak little straw men arguments that we've never even asserted. This is how the inept debate.
Straw man????? No sir. YOU made thee claims. And you have to accept the results from your claims. How do you explain your claims? What this is is YOU avoiding the subject by trying to call it strawman. You claim that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon. So you need to explain how that stuff and the people got there and what happened to flight 77. Otherwise you haven't proven your case, you simply found some odd evidence. And of course you simply make the rest up. Just like you make up the part about bombs and the plane veering away.
Do you mean Terry Morin?
s the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction.
. . . The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.
Sounds like he saw the plane before it flew over.
In fact, Northeast of the FOB could very well be the North side of the Citgo.
Doesn't sound like that to me at all. If it flew over he would have seen it veer away. Or are we to believe it continued just over top of the traffic on the other side of the building too and yet not a single person on the streets saw it? Seriously?
You mean the 5 frames that were originally leaked and no one could or would take credit for?
Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras.
"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin.
A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."
You mean the surveillance video with a frame missing?
You mean the surveillance video that shows an object and it's smoke plume/trail that DOES NOT cast a shadow?
You mean the smoke plume that NOT ONE WITNESS SAW. Not even dubious witnesses mention it.
Nice try, but we know where the video came from. If you are trying to claim it's fake, then show your evidence. Quote mining is not evidence. No it wasn't officially released it was leaked because no investigation is going to hand out evidence during the investigation. But like in most big situations evidence gets leaked out.
And what missing frame? Are you referring to the version from the cult tabloids where they put fake time stamps on the frames? And put the fake date on it? The smoke trail is the damaged engine which was in the path of a light pole.
And more importantly, it shows something, anything you want to imagine it is hitting the building and nothing flying over. So even pretending it isn't flight 77, it still is more evidence that your claims are completely wrong. And what witnesses would see the smoke from the engine when it started only a second before the impact?
No, I know. They just "think". It's a figment of their imagination. They all imagined it at once.
A common phenomenon.
As opposed to you imagining that the plane must have flown over and that they must have planted all this evidence in front of everyone without them knowing and that they must have faked the phone calls, and tha they must have faked the surveilance video, and that they must have planted bombs in the building, and that they must have planted the taxi cab driver and his cab in front of everyone, and that the USA people are in on it, and it can go on and on with things that you imagine must have happened.
What it all comes down to is you trying to use a piece of evidence which is low on the reliability scale and use it to discard all other evidence and simply make up the rest. You don't mind making up the part about bombs and what not, but when asked how you make up for other issues you call it strawman.
