That is a selective interpretation. At a minimum, you must apply the same limitation to those who claim to have SPOTTED A PLANE. Witnesses are witnesses, neither more nor less. There are more who claim to have seen or heard an explosion than any other type of witness. Further, those reports are noteworthy for being contained in sources, business records, and thus considered reliable for purposes of evidence.
I am not saying there are no witnesses who said they saw and heard a jetliner; I am only saying the ones that are reliable are few in number; i.e., fewer than 20.
You are entitled to your speculation. But, your speculation is not proof of a darn thing.
The above is both speculative and a rationalization. One can take witnesses at their word and draw reasonable inferences. The fact is that of those who reported the incident in its intial aftermath, almost all of them reported "an explosion" and did not report "a plane crash." Ergo, the proper and logical inference to draw is that an explosion occurred and a plane crash did not.
A return to obstinance. You have just articulated speculative rationalizations, as have been quoted and quoted fully. You cannot jumpt to the point you have based on what preceded it. Not in logic or in effective dialogue, anyway.
Yes, that is how aircraft are positively, rather than speculatively identified.
Minimization of the significance of a claim, by way of an a priori declaration does not refute the claim.
Well, if you're asking for clarification, it simply means the military exercises were a cover for the deception, consisting in false information inputs, like radar blips, teevee images and sound bites, pyrotechnical displays to emulate a plane crash, followed by annihilation of the towers, all as a reputed terrorist attack, but what was, in fact, an utterly astonishing, in its brutality, false flag operation. Who would do such a thing? I do not know. How many people had to be fully in on it, so to speak? Fewer than a handful, ultimately. Once again, I do not know who they are and am not inclined to speculate.
The radar claims are sourced to the recollection of individual personnel, given in statements that confirm that the claims are based on what people recall. As such, the claims are not viable as evidence. These claims are all sourced in this thread in earlier posts.
As a reference point, you can take a look at the inconclusive, speculative nature of the FAA report itself:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf
First of all, this issue has already been addressed as a part of NIST's $16million investigation. They could only claim that hypothesis was "partially validated" by observation; meaning what the videos show.
This is a thread about the ALL43 videos. Look at them. I have. I have reported, on a step by step, page by page basis what I see in them. This is one reason why your posts appear to me to be obstinate. It is not as if I have been coy or obtuse or less than forthcoming. On each and every page, I post a link to a specific video segment and describe why I think that video falsifies the claim a Boeing 767 is involved. In the first 20 or so pages of this thread, I posted actual still images, but that practice was proscribed and so now all I can do is post links.
Graphically and by way of sound, the ALL43 video segments, taken together or reviewed separately falsify the claim that what is depicted is a jetliner crash. For the most part, it can be said, there is no sound of a jetliner and the crash shows a jetliner doing what no jetliner could do if it crashed into a steel reinforced building and where the explosion is in the wrong place and at the wrong time.
That is what each and every one of the ALL43 videos show, singly, in groups of 3 or 5 or 10 and in the aggregate.
You can confirm this by looking at the video. You can confirm NIST's partial validation claim by looking at NCSTAR 1-2 searching the words partial validation."
See: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm
See NCSTR1-2Bchapter 1-8, pg. 72/290
With the recognition that the one official investigation into the dynamics of what happened as a frame of reference, you can then take an objective look for yourself and form your own conclusion. When you do that, you can assess the situation on what "you see" or upon what "you think you see" or upon "what you would like to see" among other possibilities.
The only person you have to be honest with is yourself.
That is a rationalization and an excuse. Having an excuse does not alter the fact that their finding was one of "partial invalidation."
Your query is not to my likeing because it is too pedantic. You are not the teacher and I am not in your classroom. I do not play 20 question games and I do not go off on wild goose chases after data that anyone interested can find for themselves.
If you have a claim you want to make about admissibility, then make it and I will respond.
Your a priori declaration is not supported by any actual reference to any actual evidence.
Last edited:
