posted by TC
Not our job.
Pardon me, but yes, that's exactly your job. See, let me explain how science works. There's a theory that explains your observations. Someone else comes along and thinks that the theory isn't sufficient to explain all the observations. So they come up with a new theory. For theat theory to be viable, however, it must explain not only the new observations, but also
all the old ones. When Copernicus and Galileo posited the heliocentric theory, it explained the paths of the planets, but it didn't ignore the paths of the sun and moon.
So, for you to have a substitute theory, it cannot ignore the downed light poles that are perfectly explained by the official theory. To do so would be unscientific.
Another example would be to use Einstein's theory of relativity and Newton's work on forces and gravitation.
When Einstein proposed his theory he did not ignore Newton. Newton's work indeed did function very well in calculating orbits and almost all other applications. Einstein's worked better on aspects in which Newton's equations did not. However it was incumbant upon Einstein to also show that his formulae also worked to arrive at the same conclusions as Newton's in the senarios in which Newton's already proved correct. If Einstein's theory had for instance, postulated that mass increased to approach infinity as velocity approached lightspeed but also came to the conclusion that at 1/100,000 lightspeed that a moving mass would have no momentum his theory would be shown to be in error.
The CIT requires a vast and unsubstantiated claim of a vast, complicated and wholly unneccessary conspiracy which includes the use of a D.C. area cab driver to plant fake evidence of the flight path, that the news organization of USA Today be co-opted to lie for that conspiracy among others.
It requires that one accept that this conspiracy needed a path of downed lamp poles to bolster the idea that a plane had hit the Pentagon and that a path was chosen to illustrate this yet another path was chosen for the supposed decoy aircraft.
It requires that faked DNA evidence of the souls on board Flight 77 be shown to have been in the Pentagon.
It requires that fake evidence of a Boeing 757 be placed in and around the Pentagon.
It requires that explosives be placed in the Pentagon and on the outside as well. It requires that a plane fly and perform a manouver that it could not do.
It requires that one ignore the questions concerning where the actual flight 77 and the souls on board went, and why there are no witnesses at all who saw a plane fly low and fast while just clearing the Pentagon.
It requires that one believe that Robert Turcois was incorrect in not one but two statements about where he saw the plane.
It requires that Robert Turcois believe that he saw the fireball before the plane hit the building while maintaining that the plane did hit the building thus producing a fireball.
It requires that only one of Paik's diagrams be accepted.
It requires that both Lagasse's line on the aerial picture which places the flight path well to the south of the Citgo AND Turcois' line on his copy of the same photo which places the plane actually directly overhead the station be accepted as showing the same thing when they do not.
,, and it requires that one accept one aspect of a half dozen witness's statements while ignoring the statements from more witnesses who do agree with the accepted flight path as well as other aspects of the witness statements they do like be ignored.
Please provide indisputable proof of AA77 passengers/crew remains inside the Pentagon.
Are you claiming that your 6 eyewitnesses are "indisputable proof"?
In fact they do make that claim.
