Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
That's just a favorite straw man argument, PW - instead of accepting the request for proof as reasonable at face value, tag me as a "typical CT" that wouldn't accept it as genuine by claiming they are still fake parts.
First of all, it's not as if you can just take a few days and crank out authentic looking duplicates for all of the many thousands of parts and assemblies in a 757. Pulling that off would take a master stroke of workmanship, time and dedication - I would certainly not go so far as to still believe it was faked to such a minute degree.
|
And the thought of them taking the real AA77 out of it's secret hangar in the hollow mountain, breaking it up and displaying those bit and peices wouldn't be thought of by anyone? No one wold have to fake the plane debris since, if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon,
it still exists somewhere.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Asking for solid, conclusive evidence is in no way whatsoever a case of "moving the goalposts"! That's the easy way out, by trying to twist it around into nothing but a "CT tactic". It doesn't wash. Not trying to be preachy, but demanding proof for an unproven claim stands by itself as the inherent right of every citizen to demand from his or her elected representative.
|
Then please offer up an explanation for the items Gillianren listed a few posts back, that can explain them all, without a 757 being involved. Calling for another investigation based on "it doesn't feel right" would be a huge waste of time and money. There needs to be enough reason to start again. So far, there is not.
A lot of people think Elvis is still alive, yet his grave was never opened (that I recall). Presumably because there is no reason to do so based on even that many claims. How is this different? There is ample evidence to conclude the official story is what really happened. Without some evidence of a conspiracy, or even a reasonably complete theory, to use as a starting point, how would a new investigation differ at all from the current one?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
The problem is you tend to accept most or all of these things outright as iron-clad "evidence" without ever questioning them - even on a single issue. Anything left out or not revealed prompts a knee-jerk response that it is all "irrelevant" if it hasn't been disclosed, or it is classified "in our best interests" or "for reasons of national security". All those are gestures of implicit trust in our gov't that if it isn't disclosed they are doing so for our benefit.
Let's hear all the black box recordings and ATC tapes (if any still exist that weren't destroyed against regulations already). Let's see all the airport surveillance videos of the "hijackers" checking in - they have not released even one from that day! And let's see the evidence for Flt. 77 - the actual, concrete evidence that proves the story. We pay them to represent our best interests and they are supposed to be working for [i]us[/u], not the other way around.
|
The first bit in bold seems like you are assuming they have already destroyed it. No benefit of the doubt there eh?
"they have not released even one from that day!"
You know, except that one that was on every practically every news station in the courty a few days later of some of the men checking in in Maine. The one that was used to link the hijackers to al Queda in the media long before any trrops were sent anyplace. That one.
From
here, a site that seems to be against the official story. Bolding mine
Quote:
Until 2004, the only video available to the public showing the alleged hijackers at any airport was a clip from a security camera at the Portland, Maine airport showing Mohammed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari going through security. 1 The public has not been treated to any video showing any of the alleged hijackers at Boston Logan Airport, the origin of Flights 11 and 175, or Newark Airport, the origin of Flight 93. Video allegedly showing four hijackers boarding Flight 77 at Dulles Airport was released by a law firm representing some survivors' families in July of 2004, on the same day that the Kean Commission released its report. 2
|