I have Kreel on ignore, and I suggest that other people follow suit. The reason I have him on ignore is because of inanities like this:
So if catching the first strike on the tower was just luck. How much luck was involved in also catching the airplane strike on the south tower by the Naudets?
KreeL
I can see in responses that he's been asking ridiculous, asinine questions about the Naudet brothers proximity to the disaster. They were filming a documentary in Manhattan for weeks up to that point; given that they were out and about with the firefighters, how could they have
missed the event? There's no mystery to this at all. The fact that they were taken by surprise by the first impact is proof enough that they were not expecting it. But there is no luck involved in their presence to begin with, only odds. And given their task, why would their capturing the first impact be thought of as luck? They were present for other reasons, and had been in the area for weeks before that. Someone explain to me how that's "luck". If I'm in an area every day for weeks on end, and on one of those days I witness a car wreck, is it "luck" that I was there?
Proximity imposed by their choice of tasks is not luck.
And as to the specific comment I unhid to quote: Given that they had already witnessed the first strike, why in God's name would they
not be filming the towers?
They were documentarians! The capturing of the second impact flows from the fact they were documenting the consequences of the first! Just how far does one need to suspend logic in order to ask such a question?
It is hypocritical for members of the truth movement to find the Naudet brothers' filming of the NY impacts as suspicious, then turn around and find the relative lack of clear video of FL77's impact on the Pentagon as equally suspicious. Suspicion in one case contradicts the grounds for suspicion in the other! And harps on irrelevant details about the events on top of that. Outside of video or film, there is a great deal of evidence converging from multiple sources to establish that the flights identified as having hit the towers and the Pentagon were indeed FL 11, 175, and 77. Harping on film or video as suspicious ignores that plethora of evidence. Video, film, or lack of either does not prove or refute the identity of the flights on their own; rather, in conjunction with everything else that is known, it helps illustrate what happened. It is merely a single brick in the wall of evidence proving what happened on that day. Conspiracy peddlers need to stop obsessing over single bricks and start understanding that their narratives must
encompass the entirety of the data, not merely satisfy point beliefs on isolated matters.
Now, can these asinine questions stop, and things move back to T.A.M.'s original intent, which is to focus on
legitimate questions? All of the inanities that have been presented have been dealt with previously anyway; just use the damn search function to find them.
