jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Since cicorp is unwilling to start a new thread and has instead derailed one, I have posted a response to one of his posts here;
In a police investigation jst how slowly would such gathering of evidence be proper and non-suspicious?
In fact could it not be argued that had the FBI taken days to gather all these videos that they would be derilict in their duties?
Only ver specific parts of the engines are titanium and I doubt that the causual observer would even recognize those parts as being from specific engines.
So? The aircraft managed to destroy the entire section it hit. It would have done the same had it hit a supposedly weaker section as well. It would not have had enough momentum to carry accross the interior open space and contact another wing, so your point is rather meaningless.
Well not quite and again would you have reason to expect to have Rummy specifically targeted? If not then your point is again meaningless.
He was proficient enough to keep the aircraft in the air and generally pointed at where he wanted it to go. One needs no more than that and an ability to read a map to aim for and hit not only the largest structure for hundreds of miles but one that is a particularily unigue shape and lying alongside a major river and only 1 mile from a navigational aid (VOR/DME)
Second. no 'bomb' exists that would manage to take out 100 feet, laterally , the front wall of ONE storey without creating a huge hole accross several storeys
.
Hi Aldo!!
Now how abot refering to Boger without saying he is lieing.
If it quacks like a duck, paddles about in the water and has a brilliant green head then it probably a male Mallard duck, we do not need DNA testing to confirm such avian identity.
Again, SO? You expected a DNA lab to be set up on the Pentagon front lawn? or do you watch too much CSI?
I suppose you are very good at Monady morning reviewing of the calls that quarter backs make on Sunday as well.
Yet you also wrote "Storti shows that "eye witnesses" might exaggerate." and it should go without saying that eyewitnesses can also be incorrect.
Yeah, 'plants,' more people involved in shenanigans that no one at all saw occur.
In a police investigation jst how slowly would such gathering of evidence be proper and non-suspicious?
In fact could it not be argued that had the FBI taken days to gather all these videos that they would be derilict in their duties?
Only ver specific parts of the engines are titanium and I doubt that the causual observer would even recognize those parts as being from specific engines.
??? The missing part of the front wall at the first floor(ground floor) level is 90 to 100 feet, sufficient to account for the wingspan of the aircraft.
So? The aircraft managed to destroy the entire section it hit. It would have done the same had it hit a supposedly weaker section as well. It would not have had enough momentum to carry accross the interior open space and contact another wing, so your point is rather meaningless.
What about it? Had it hit the radio room would that be less 'suspicious'? the office of Rummy himself? What part of this structure would carry with it no 'suspiciousness'?
Well not quite and again would you have reason to expect to have Rummy specifically targeted? If not then your point is again meaningless.
He was proficient enough to keep the aircraft in the air and generally pointed at where he wanted it to go. One needs no more than that and an ability to read a map to aim for and hit not only the largest structure for hundreds of miles but one that is a particularily unigue shape and lying alongside a major river and only 1 mile from a navigational aid (VOR/DME)
Yes, they do and in fact they totally support the notion that said aircraft impacted the Pentagon since EVERYONE who was in a position to see it occur said IT DID!!!
Oddly enough though 100 feet of brick and stone that made up the first floor wall DID NOT end up on the Pentagon lawn indicating that no explosive went off propelling debris outward from the inside of the structure.
Second. no 'bomb' exists that would manage to take out 100 feet, laterally , the front wall of ONE storey without creating a huge hole accross several storeys
Contact the Armed Forces DNA Identification labs. Get back to us when you have sufficient reason to suspect a problem with this chain of custody. You know, something other than 'I don't trust the gov't/DoD'
.
Hi Aldo!!
Now how abot refering to Boger without saying he is lieing.
Why? If witnesses say they saw a plane matching the description of an AA Boeing and parts consistent with type are found in the structure and an AA Boeing is tracked to the location by radar at which time it disappears from radar then why need such specifics?
If it quacks like a duck, paddles about in the water and has a brilliant green head then it probably a male Mallard duck, we do not need DNA testing to confirm such avian identity.
Again, SO? You expected a DNA lab to be set up on the Pentagon front lawn? or do you watch too much CSI?
Given that several of the CiT's own star witnesses specifically say that the aircraft hit the Pentagon even though they all differ in some way as to the exact path it took to get there we can conclude that this one specific in which they all agree is MORE accurate than many other aspects of such testimony. The reasons for this are many. First of all is the fact that as the aircraft hits the Pentagon it is clearly discernable where it is. There are spatial references galore for the observer to reference UNLIKE when the aircraft is in the air and there are few such references. Of course there is also the very traumatic emotion associated with seeing a plane impact a structure. Same happens with car accidents. Witnesses may vary widely as to the speed and behaviour of the car before it hits a tree but they all can describe that it hit front end first and that it hit the tree. The aircraft in the air flying very low and very fast is an oddity, and somewhat unnerving but carries not the same emotional response that seeing it hit a building would. In fact when such things happen , very often people will say that their first thought was "NO!" in that they did not want to see this occur, wished for it not to, found it traumatic to consider. YET here we are with many witnesses saying that the aircraft did IN FACT hit the building.
I suppose you are very good at Monady morning reviewing of the calls that quarter backs make on Sunday as well.
No you keep saying 'bomb' without any evidence at all that this resembles in any way the effect of a bomb. You will have to account for no bricks and stone on the lawn and a highly selective lateral removal of the first floor wall as well as the fact that the genset on the lawn was moved TOWARDS the building rather than away from it.
Yet you also wrote "Storti shows that "eye witnesses" might exaggerate." and it should go without saying that eyewitnesses can also be incorrect.
Yeah, 'plants,' more people involved in shenanigans that no one at all saw occur.
Last edited:
