For when you come back, David C....
Look at the first frame shown in these photos from the
very site you gave us.
What once was a blob that appearent was confused for being a nose cone now takes on an odd shope; it looks like a curly fry.
How do
you explain this?
Also, from the image that you claim shows the nose cone of an aircraft, do you not see the longer object in front of the white cloud that is blurry?
If so, what do
you think it is?
Note that I emphasize the word
you, because I want to make clear that I
do not want links to what other people think. I want
your opinion.
Also, I just want to say again about the physical evidence...
You say it's plausible for the stuff to be planted. Unfortunately, it's not a logical assumption.
You're talking about hundreds of pieces being placed into a burning building. And all this must be done without anyone noticing.
You have no proof of planted evidence. None whatsoever.
All you have is speculation, nothing more.
This mere speculation of yours, combined with an errrornous interpretation of a few photos is nowhere near "blowing the offical story out of the water", as you say. It is all you have on your side.
On the side of our claims is the physical evidence of the crash. You see, we're not limited to a few frames of a traffic cam as evidence that supports our claims. The debris from the plane, and human remains, as well as radar data, support our claims.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat these phrases:
Quote:
|
You guys really make yourselves look silly when you say the object is smoke. I can understand why you do it though; you can't say 9/11 was an inside job. I can assure you though that you all look completely silly.
|
I can assure
you that your speculation is not logical.
My advice to you is to read up on
Occam's Razor.
There is a great phrase dealing with it that definately applies to this discussion:
Quote:
|
Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity
|
Your introduction of planted witnesses, people planting evidence, ect, are examples of multipling entities. With no evidence for your speculations regarding these claims, they are not necessary.
Please read this and think about it when you return.