Originally posted by hooper
Wrong and misleading - yes they did.
Then please show it.
Why would any rational person question why so little wreckage was found ON THE WAY TO the accident scene. Face it, if the lawn were strewn
about with tons of aircraft wreckage you would be questioning why all the wreckage wasn't inside the building.
Huh? This discussion includes all wreckage, no one mentioned anything about wreckage found on the way to the scene.
But if the engines were not on the lawn, then where did they go? They didn't go inside now did they?
Any rational person who looks at the details of the case can see something, or a lot of things, are missing.
Brilliant! And you wonder why there isn't a massive movement to start a new investigation with blindingly obvious incite like that.
Well, I'm sorry the blindingly obvious bothers you.
Do I need to point out what is wrong with this little gem? And please tell me you would be satisfied if the FBI and the airlines released a
parts list - c'mon.
I'm just pointing out that when you claim you have indisputable evidence you better be able to verify that evidence, other then faith in what you've
been told. Just because something supports what you want to believe it doesn't make it fact.
And you have nothing but the ability to parrot the idea that everyone is lying that doesn't support your little fantasy.
Well unless there is indisputable evidence then I AM going to question the validity of any claims. I don't see anything wrong with that, unless you
think faith is good enough. There are so many HUGE holes in the OS then every little detail is automatically suspect, and will not be simply believed
on faith. YOU need to be 100% in your claims because YOU are supporting something that is in question. What the 'truthers' say is not what is in
question, the OS is. Remember that.
Again, taking down the old "everyone is lying" tool off the shelf whenever you are confronted with the truth.
No, my point was it doesn't matter either way. There is much more relevant evidence that is much harder for Dave to dispute.
Like how you would accept a parts list from the airlines but don't believe the DNA evidence because there is no "independent chain of
You are just projecting your assumptions. I never said I would except a parts list from the airlines. Do you have a parts list? If there is no chain
of custody then there is NO evidence, again I don't work on faith.
And exactly what would that be anyway? And how would that have worked on 9/11? "No, no - don't touch the bodies! We need Captain Independent
to come by and verify the remains as, of course, we all being government employees must be the prime suspects"!
Independent chain of custody from the collecting of DNA to the doctors testing it etc., that didn't come from the entity who is in question.
No, quite a few people can say for sure, it is not all speculation.
No they can't. If there was a definitive witness of the plane impacting the pentagon then there would be no questions. But I was actually referring
to Dave's claim that 'truthers' claim it was a cruse missile.
Or, more importantly, ignore all the details and call everyone a liar.
No need to ignore anything, or call anyone a liar. Maybe you need to really look at what the witnesses said instead of what you think, and want them
BTW why are you answering for DAVE? Now if DAVE replies I have to reply again to DAVE.
edit on 7/5/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)