yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
I wasn't referring to the minutiae-arguing details like that is a waste of time when it ignores the obvious. Like you, I'm not an engineer or physicist, however, unlike you, I am well-versed in the application of logic, and as such, I recognise the need for you to disprove the existence of the aircraft before your hypothesis will gain any form of validation or recognition. Until that time, you are merely promoting a rather inane story.
The obvious:
a). You can't prove the planes were faked.
b). You can't refute eyewitness testimony that identifies the aircraft as aircraft.
c). You can't demonstrate or prove how the aircraft wreckage was planted, or if it was planted at all.
d). You can't prove or demonstrate how all the video footage (that depicts aircraft) was faked, or if it was faked at all.
Until that time your story is just that-a story (and not even a good story).
Do you understand the process required to develop a reasonable hypothesis?
Translation: don't be curious; believe what you're told.