All that typing, yet you failed to address a quetion I posted to you,
David C.
To refresh your memory, I asked for your thoughts on the El al 747 Amsterdam "Bijlmermeer" (Bijlmer) crash.
You conviently clipped that part off of the quote I mentioned you being backed into a corner.
Let me refresh your memory (with emphasis on the part I really wanted your response too):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
I'd still like your thoughts on that 747 crash I mentioned earlier. Look at the photos provided by Nicolas, and then explain why a 757 couldn't cause the damage seen at the Pentagon.
I will take a failure for you to do this as a concession, as you will find yourself backed into a corner with your arguement, and no other explainations left, other than speculations (as this requires you own ideas, and not some that have been posted online by someone else).
|
The section in italics is the kicker in my quote, the part that you simply ignored, because in all likelyhood, no CTer website, nor anything on Loose Change can draw parellels between the senerios I put forth for you to consider.
So, I ask you again, why wouldn't a 757 produce damage in the Pentagon as we see it just as the 747 crash I referred to did?
An answer to that will be a good test of objectivity on your part.
It is your failure to provide an answer to
that that will show your concession.
Misquote me again, and you ruin your creditbility more than it has been already.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David C
|
Well, I offered a test for your objectivity, so we still have yet to see if
you are really objective.
To the photo, the plane is indistinct, due to being so far away, not to mention appearing very small. And it's appearence is blurred, because it's moving too fast for the camera's capability (it's a traffic cam, not a standard cam).
To base your arguments on magnifications of that object in that photo is what is ridiculous. As you say, there are alternative explainations.
Also, you never addressed as to why you seem to think that terrorists couldn't have been resposible for the attack.
Please, tell us why. Such an answer can also show how objective you are.
Quote:
|
Show something that you consider to be proof that is was a 757 and we can discuss whether it constitutes conclusive proof. Everything you've shown so far has one or more alternative explanations.
|
We did already. The wreckage, pieces of the plane that have marking, the bodies, DNA testing that matched that to the passengers of Flight 77, the radar data, and witnesses that saw the plane.
Your only alternative explaination is that these are plants.
Yet, we've already explained how ludicrious this is. Mixing heavy plane parts in a burning building? All in a matter of seconds? And without being seen by hundreds of people?
The problem with your alternative explaination is that it fails Occam's Razor miserably. It requires a very complex network of agents, all who would have to keep quiet, for a vague cause.
Even if that was the case, where is the Frank Serpico of this whole ordeal?
To enlighten you to history, Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty.
The same applies to your explainations
David C, wether you like it or not.
And as we've seen, you really don't like it, because it doesn't fit into your view of the world.