If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?, page 17

Originally posted by OrionStars

Actually, it does if you read the book. It explains and substantiates why a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Dr. Tiradera is an ex-USAF officer, whose job duties entailed investigating military jet crashes. As a physician, it served well in forensic examination of bodies and remains as well. He was also involved in forensically examining the debris of crashed aircraft. In other words, he is credible experienced professional expert substantiating what he wrote in his book.

Evidence by innuendo? Did you notice Titadera just asks a lot of questions? Like:

"Notice that there is no impact gouge or turf damage to the Pentalawn from any aircraft part. They just floated down like feathers, right?"
911exposed.org...

That's a technique common to all types of conspiracists. Ask a lot of "questions" then "suggest" an answer. I don't think you'll ever find a serious researcher resorting to such low standards of supporting a case.

This one is even more egregious and a dead giveaway:

"Why is this part from the landing gear so heavy rusted? Other than the rust it has no other damage what so ever — there is no: scratches, gouges, deformation, or broken pieces. Notice the polished protrusion on the left, completely unscratched, and free of rust. It appears that this piece had been sitting in an outdoor scrap yard for some time. The protrusion was inside a fitting and therefore never was exposed to moisture, thus keeping its natural smooth finish. This part was not from any plane that hit the Pentagon. "

He is leading the reader that certain things should be "expected" to be seen without a stitch of supporting evidence! All the reader has to do is think it's plausible and that the author, for some unexamined reason, must know what he is talking about.

How is it that 9/11 conspiracists who claim to be "skeptics" of the government can so easily let their guard down when someone like Tiradera comes along, writes a lot of stuff without evidence, and is believed?

Also, he is really just quote-mining, repeating a lot of debunked claims, and not providing evidence to back up his claims.

Now, look at this:

# Flight 77 was not a scheduled flight and interestingly was filled with an assortment of high-tech defense-contractor employees.
# Flight 77 was ten minutes late — this accounts for the reason that the 9/11 Commission had to change the time of attack.
# Flight 77 never went off course.

Read it carefully. Tiradera says AA77 was not a scheduled flight , yet, amazingly, it was 10 minutes behind schedule! Not only that, Tiradera was able to tell it was not off course.

This means that Tiradera must have knowledge of AA77's flight plan as a non-scheduled flight. Yet, nowhere do I see Tiradera producing that flight plan or explaining how he got it. Maybe I missed it.

Furthemore, given the extensive knowledge that AA77 was a scheduled flight on 9/11/2001, Tiradera is faced with the fact that the hundreds of airport personnel involved with every single commercial flight in the country to confirm AA77's existence as a scheduled flight that day or not. Add that to the silence of 1,000 or so witnesses to the crash AND wreckage and you've got a lot of people who can keep quiet!

Why don't you ask Tiradera about that?

Did you expect laypersons in forums to be able to explain, or even fully substantiate, what takes expertise from an experienced field hands-on professional or career technician?

It was quite easy for me. I am a skeptic, after all. Maybe you should question your own beliefs.