What I can find about Jacoby is that it is
Popular Mechanics who makes that statement in the name of Jacoby. Can you produce a pointer to where Jacoby says so himself? Popular Mechanics has a very bad uhhh... press in truther circles, with good reason.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
Mother of God, you're now trying to rebut the statement by complaining about who
reported it? At the same time that you forward Infowars sites as evidence? You can't be serious. It doesn't matter what
truther circles say about Pop Mech, it matters what the
evidence is. And you've provided
zero evidence that the statement was not made.
And the
last rebuttal you want to point to is Jim Hoffman's. You cannot combat factual information with disproven canards and repetition of myths.
Has been discussed in this thread. It does not matter whether a plane storms towards the earth with or without a tail (in the latter case after being shot in the tail); it will result in the same primary debris field. It is the (existence of a) secondary and tertiary debris fields that undermine the official story; FDR and CVR have been researched by the party who is under suspicion (in the eyes of the truthers).
Your statement about debris field patterns are bunk. The human remains were found within a relatively small area; so were heavy pieces like the engines. Lighter debris was what was found far away. This is entirely inconsistent with a shootdown. Besides which, you provide zero evidence that the jet was missing its tail! Hell, you provide only one piece of evidence that a jet was in the area at all - de Grand-Pre's statement - and cannot explain the lack of any radar data supporting this, as well as the lack of witness sightings of a missile!
Furthermore, you cannot cast aspersions on the FDR and CVR evidence in such a facile and unsupported manner. The data is entirely consistent with the ATC radar data, as well as the debris. The radar data shows no jets in the area, the FDR demonstrates a fully functional jet, and the CVR has no sounds of explosions or plane disintegration. Try addressing the
evidence from here on out. You're not. You're hiding behind weak, unsupported accusations. You want to demonstrate that the FDR is "suspicous"? Show how the information gathered from it contradicts what's known about the flight from the radar data, for example. Show how elements of the data are incorrect, or impossible for the aircraft. If you can't, you have zero rebuttal to the evidence.
You have yet to produce evidence that it was Jacoby himself who stated as such rather than PM.
On the other hand I have a high-ranking officer who says he spoke to the pilot. Why would he lie? It takes persona courage to stand up to the government, no gain is to be expected from such a move, except honor and self respect.
You have an unsupported quote that is flatly contradicted by the rest of the evidence, as well as a quote from a person who's hearing it secondhand from a suspect source and making an
opinion about the truthfulness of the source. That's not proof. The source for that general's claim has been refuted by not only a witness, but by electronic evidence as well. We're not even getting into the physical evidence yet, and we already have all we need to demonstrate that de Grand-Pre's statement is false, regardless of who vouches for him. Even if that general believes de Grand-Pre is telling the truth, that does not overcome the weight of the physical and electronic evidence. His belief does not negate real evidence; it is only a belief. Your argument is insufficient as a rebuttal.
I was about to say that myself.
Go ahead. Repeat it. We'll agree then that the weight of the evidence sinks your argument. It's about time
you realized that yourself.
