Originally posted by neil_86
I agree with you, but in a different way. I always thought CIT has a much better proof in the form of physical evidence provided by the pristine hood
of Llyode's taxi (photo in the official reprot itself).
Now, when Physics, Geometry and mechanics of the situation are speaking for CIT, where is the need to bring in the weaker evidence in the form of
Lloyde's and Gallop's words. They will only provide arsenal to people who are interested in hiding and obfuscating the truth. This is the reason
these people avoid talking about "hard physical evidence and keep bumping the threads where they can put different spins on what this
or that guy/girl said.
Probably the intent is to bury the threads dealing with hard physical evidence due to lack of active debate. And keep frivolous threads alive
by deliberate bumping. This way the active topics on this site will look more and more like main stream media. And when some random new comer
happens on this site, he/she will think, there is nothing new here and move on without knowing about the internal discripencies in the official
account. A great way for obfuscators of the truth.
Well, it's obvious you're new here, or you would already know that April Gallop was brought up constantly by the
CIT loyalists (the dozen or
so out there) in several of their threads as proof of the "flyover". This is hardly what I would call a "frivolous thread", it actually goes a
long way to proving that their claims are bunk.
Now about the
hard, physical evidence, lol... seriously, an unscratched hood of a car only means it didn't get scratched, nothing more,
nothing less. You can say that it should have been scratched if the pole really did go through the windshield all you like, but that does NOT make it
so. I've seen horrible car accidents where occupants in the car perished while others didn't receive a scratch, and walked away perfectly fine, it
boggles the mind for sure, but does not make it impossible. Don't take my word for it, ask any paramedic or firefighter.
Since you're new here, I'll help you out this once, search around and you'll find out what CIT is all about, their entire theory is based around
the assumption that a handful of witnesses saw the plane a bit north that other people did, so in their minds, somehow this plane managed to fly over
the Pentagon, while a magic trick explosion somehow distracted everyone in the entire area while this huge jet flew away to which no further
explanation or
proofhas been given to it's whereabouts.
Not one of their "north side" witnesses (nor any others) claim to have seen the plane they watched fly on the "wrong" flight path pass over the
building. Everyone knows it ended up in the Pentagon.
Now, since you want "hard physical evidence" you should not look to CIT, but the real evidence :
Video of the plane slamming into the building and exploding
Pictures of the aftermath
Plane parts from the plane inside and outside the building
100+ witnesses that saw the plane hit the building
Phone calls from the passengers
Things to question about CIT's "hard, physical evidence" :
Where is the evidence/witnesses that light poles were planted?
Where is the evidence/witnesses that the plane parts were planted?
Where is the evidence/witnesses to some "Hollywood special effect explosion"?
Where is the evidence/witnesses to where the plane went to?
Where is the evidence/witnesses to what happened to the passengers?
You know what, you will NOT get any answers to those questions, all they will say is the plane couldn't have caused the damage since it flew on the
north side of the Citgo. Oh, and an unscratched hood of a Taxi cab, THAT's their physical evidence.
Ask yourself honestly, does any of that REALLY make sense?
