Quote:
Originally Posted by David C
So I get insults for weeks and nobody gets a warning and as soon as I start expressing my feeling I get a warning.
|
You are the one making insults, such as "anyone with a brain", and so forth.
Not one of us has done so.
We are only criticizing your arguements, not you personally.
You are doing differently.
Quote:
|
I've said before that it would take two hours a day to answer every question put to me. I don't have two hours a day for this so the questions I skip are the ones that I've already dealt with.
|
How much of that time is taken up copying and pasting links?
I ask, because every response you make has the same old links and articles.
Quote:
|
Yesterday I didn't have enough time to deal with the question about the 757 crash in Holand and I don't have the time today either--maybe this weekend.
|
That would be my question.
It involved a
747 not a 757. And "Holland" has two "L's".
Seems more like you didn't answer it because you couldn't find any CT sites on it.
Also, I'd like to know this: why you seem to think that terrorists couldn't have been resposible for the attack?
I asked this once before as well.
Quote:
|
I've dealt with all of this before--there are alternative explanations for all of it so it's mere evidence--not proof. I've already posted my alternative explanations and today I don't have the time to do it again. Putting forth a mere plausibility as proof is not scientific. All of those points are mere plausibilities.
|
And your saying
your suggestions aren't mere plausibilities?
Quote:
|
As I've said before--whether it's been altered is a debatable point. There is no proof I can offer. All I can say is that if it hasn't been altered, the object is the nose of something other than a 757 and 9/11 was an inside job. If it has been altered, it was a very illogical thing for the government to do as they altered it to make it look like the nose of a fighter instead of the nose of a 757. It is highly unlikely that they did that so it probably hasn't been altered.
|
And what if it IS a 757? Where does that leave you?
Quote:
|
I've dealt with this before. If you look at the picture of the first tower hit by a 767 it shows the outling of the whole plane. If the wings could make a mark like that on steel, I think they could have made a similar mark on concrete. There are no marks on the Pentagon that show the outline of the wings. The damage on the walls could have come from the inside. I don't have time to look for the links now.
|
You seem a bit confused or uninformed.
The hole was made in
glass and light
aluminum, not steel.
The steel was inside the building, not visible.
The wings amount to little more than metal ballons when slammed into concrete at about 400 mph. They're not meant for such stress to be put on them.
So, why again do you think they ought to leave an outline? Have you considerd anything about the structure of planes wings before making your opinion, or did you just make an assumption with no research?
Quote:
|
That traffic cam picture of the nose of the craft that obviously is not a 757 is the proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. You can downplay it all you want but it won't go away.
|
Nor will the physical proof go away either, David C.
You can call the plane parts, DNA evidence, bodies, phone calls made from the craft, and radar tracking all "plausible" explainations all you wish. They won't go away.
It has been said many times, a single indistinct picture is not proof positive.
Quote:
|
It might have all been planted just before the craft hit the building.
|
You're going to have to show us, with empirical evidence, how this could've been done. Until then, all you have is speculation, not evidenece or proof.
Quote:
|
I've dealt with this before. She's probably living someplace with a new identity. Her family can visit her from time to time. That's a perfectly plausible explanation. The fact that she was on flight 77 is not proof that it was the craft that hit the Pentagon--it's mere evidence as there are plausible alternative explanations.
|
Sounds like you've been watching too much TV.
No, it is not a plausible explaination, no more than your "planted evidence" theory. More along the lines of a "highly unlikely" speculation.
Theories of the likes you present David C are not the type to be welcome with open arms in this forum (in contrast to Loose Change).
You must have empirical evidence to back up ideas. That, or credible resources. CT sites are often not of that kind.
Just pointing these things out to you, in case you didn't notice.