Originally posted by cogburn
Except that we do know what caused the damage, which was the entire point of my post. It was diesel fuel and the impact of a jet engine at high
velocity that caused the damage. You assert something different without evidence and only conjecture that is easily countered.
See? This is exactly what I mean!
You don't care that your own assertions completely contradict your other arguments. You just forge ahead furiously trying to counter whatever I say
no matter what by throwing in a bunch of rhetoric with confidence.
The north side evidence proves the plane did not damage the trailer and a thread that YOU link to in YOUR signature that YOU created asserts and
strongly argues for an NoC impact of the building meaning you would have to ACCEPT the north side evidence as valid.
It's 100% clear to the layman that there is no way the plane flew NoC and hit the generator trailer.
A south side path is REQUIRED for the damage to the generator to be remotely explained:
You don't care about logic, reason, or evidence.
You simply take whatever side of the argument counters what I say.
If we assume the missing 4-6ft of the trailer was due to the impact of the plane, and given there is a large, non-symmetrical object inside, it's
well within the realm of possibility that whatever was inside the trailer was responsible for the outward-damage on the north face of the trailer.
That's a lot of ASSuming for the basic purpose of countering what I say while contradicting yourself in the process.
There is no "missing 4-6 ft of the trailer" anyway.
You made that up and have provided no evidence for this.
The top corner is bent down and the other side has a massive gaping hole in in the TOP part.
The notion that some "non-symmetrical object" literally tore through the other side while the rest of the structure remained perfectly in tact is
nothing but a fantasy that you concocted that requires you to abandon arguments that you have furiously (and desperately) made in the past and STILL
link in your signature.
Besides even if that DID happen why would the TOP part of the trailer have a gaping hole? It makes no sense whatsoever and you know it.
The plane impacted the trailer, rupturing the fuel tank and partially dragging the generator out of the trailer through the north side. This scenario
is equally plausible, and unlike your "some type of weaponry" claim, infinitely more plausible.
So where is the generator on the ground? Why does the TOP part of that side of the trailer have a gaping hole? This trailer was created FOR the
generator and the notion that the generator is just sitting loose inside of it is ridiculous. Your assertion is nonsense with zero evidence to back
it up. It is not the least bit plausible yet it requires you to completely abandon arguments that you have furiously (and desperately) made in the
past and STILL link in your signature.
There is nothing coherent or consistent in anything you say.
It's clear that your only goal is to cast doubt on whatever I say.
Are you asserting that this is a possible point for planted explosives used to stage the impact of the plane?
There's absolutely nothing in the images to support such a claim.
Of course it's "possible". Particularly if a lot of the damage was pre-fabricated which is beyond "possible" in their own secure backyard.
They had all the access, all the money, all the time, and all of the most advanced military weaponry available to them in the world.
Even the government has admitted that the damage is "counter-intuitive".
That's what got people questioning the event in the first place.
But the north side evidence that YOU HAVE ACCEPTED AND ARGUED FOR IN THE PAST AND STILL LINK IN YOUR SIGNATURE proves 100% that the plane did not
cause the damage to the trailer.
You do not care that you fatally contradict yourself with these ridiculous unsupported claims.
You have demonstrated how you will say absolutely anything you can think of with pure confidence as long as it counters whatever I am saying.
[edit on 23-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]
