Originally posted by megaman1234
I am happy to post this as only my second. Of all the "theories" bouncing around on these 9/11 threads - those I see those put forth by Mr. Craig
here as probably the most annoying.
Yes I can see how facts regarding information you refuse to accept and logic or reason that runs counter to your dogmatic beliefs could be considered
"annoying".
Craig - you keep bandering around about your "hard evidence and facts", as if by saying it enough will somehow make it true. None of it is HARD or
FACTUAL!
It's true whether or not I say it and you dismissing it doesn't make it go away.
Enough witness corroboration of any claim constitutes proof and is therefore hard evidence.
1 first-hand eyewitness account is evidence.
2 independently corroborated accounts is hard evidence
3 independently corroborated accounts is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have presented 4 and have 2 more yet unreleased for a total of 6.
Not a single account in the entire investigative body of evidence directly refutes the north side claim.
You know whats hard? Wreckage, damage, bodies, radar tracks.
None of which have been produced or independently obtained. If you aren't willing to consider evidence within the context of the investigation then
you aren't objectively looking at the situation and are merely regurgitating what you have been told by the suspect.
The debunkers as you call them have ALL the tangible evidence in this case. You don't have anything! Your entire case involves, what, 5 people who
say they say the plane on the wrong side of a gas station. Thats it!
That so happens to be proof of a deception whether or not you accept it.
You take that, and use that to assume that ANYTHING else is either planted or faked. Its 5 people vs a literal Mountain of physical and other HARD
evidence and FACTS! How anyone at all can agree with that is beyond me.
So far you have failed to list any independently confirmed "facts" let alone a "mountain".
It's ridiculous. I'm flabbergasted that this is even going on.
Exactly. You are dismising logic in favor of a logical fallacy.
Your only argument against the evidence we present is an argument from incredulity.
Please adhere to critical thinking principles or go back to silently reading because logical fallacies are not a constructive method of civil
discussion.
I read that shadow thread with great interest, as it seemed that some good work went into it. You refused to even consider it with with your infamous
"evidence from the suspect is irrelevent" It must be nice not to have to answer anything tough, as you can just throw that line out trying to sound
smart. It's a complete and utter cop-out.
I not only answer tough questions.....I provide hard evidence to back it up.
There is no proof of a shadow. Two dots do not equal a jumbo jet. If you are not going to look at evidence within the context of the investigation
you might as well go back to watching fox news and believing everything they tell you.
Seriously, as suggested, lets show that pilot this radar information. Maybe he'll say - "No way! thats not true at all - something is wrong
there!" OR - just maybe he'll say "Hmm - I could see how that could be right, if I was looking in this direction, and oh yeah - maybe I did see
this a earlier than i though.. That looks about right."
There is no maybe about it. His already published statements directly contradict the data.
However we ARE in direct communication with him to get a direct reply on the RADES data.
Have you tried contacting him? If not you are not in a position to say what should or shouldn't be done in this regard because you have done
nothing.
In the first case he'll be your best friend, in the second case he'll be labeled as a liar and a paid stooge.
We have no personal connection to any of the witnesses. You are telling me what I think and you have no right to do so.
O'Brien is in a position now where he will be forced to retract all of his previous statements or admit that the RADES data does not match. We have
no inclination to pass judgment on him personally either way.
Because of this we will likely never hear from him again. But that won't stop us from continuing to follow up.
We believe O'Brien will not retract his previous statements particularly since his claims are backed up by Mineta, Monty Belger, quotes from the
NORAD tapes, and most recently with this new groundbreaking witness testimony we have obtained on the Potomac River.
Unfortunately for the official story this is a fatal contradiction proving a cover-up via evidence fabrication.
This entire no plane debate is a complete disgrace.
This unsupported blanket statement using an incorrect label for our claims only serves to expose your bias and inability to accept the evidence.
