Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I doubt I could agree with his overall take, since I'm pretty sure by other evidence the plane was low enough to impact and did, but I'm left
feeling like Rob might have a good point in there somewhere.
His "overall take" is simply that the FDR is irreconcilable with the physical damage. You have offered nothing to refute this. Whether or not you
choose to continue to hold onto the notion that a 757 hit the building despite
fatal contradictions such as this does not make all of the
anomalies go away.
Think about where you are with this.
You are forced to acknowledge that the government provided FDR is dubious and anomalous.
You are forced to acknowledge that the eyewitnesses do not make sense with the official story to the point where you assert they all HAVE TO BE
planted deep cover disinfo agents.
You are forced to suggest that the physical damage to the first floor slab is limited to a pile of rubble in front of the building and that the ASCE
report is wrong.
You are forced to accept the notion that the dubious security video depicts a perfectly level approach that is physically IMPOSSIBLE in relation to
the values reported in the FDR, particularly speed.
You are forced to accept the notion that a 20 to 30 foot long light pole weighing about 200 lbs. that was sent flying with the kinetic force of a 90
ton jet traveling 535 mph did not damage the hood of a car after spearing the windshield.
You are forced to reference images from well after the event in order to attribute physical damage to the "plane" that could not have been from from
You are forced to completely twist the claims of the C-130 pilot to fit with the 84 RADES data by taking specific references and assuming they were
wildly generalized and inaccurate.
You will be
forced to acknowledge that the plane approached from the east side of the Potomac completely destroying the NTSB flight path.
Yet you still insist on blissfully suggesting that "other evidence" still adds-up perfectly in your mind so the government story must be true.
The evidence is no longer on your side.
Logic and reason is not on your side.
Their story does not add up but you choose to vigorously defend it regardless.