TheLoneBedouin
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 733
911files,
Welcome to the jref forum.
I'm glad you joined because I have questions regarding your research and conclusions.
From what I have read regarding your work and prior statements, you have come to the conclusion that the 2006 released NTSB data and 2007 released 84th RADES data have been "doctored" or manipulated on some level and that the Pentagon security video is "not even reality" and that there is "no way" it is true.
You have also come to the conclusion that flashes in the CITGO security video prove a north side flyover of SOMETHING at the same time of the attack.
Is this still your position?
If not what made you change it and what made you originally have that position to begin with?
Also, just curious about your logic in this regard because it seems to be contradictory....but do you understand how if any government data has been shown to be manipulated or "doctored" as you put it, that this implicates a cover-up/deliberate deception and sets a clear precedent that logically, in the very least, must be acknowledged and heavily considered when looking at other government controlled and provided information?
Thanks in advance for your candid response to my questions.
Also....you are heavily cited throughout Mark Gaffney's brand new book about the E4B.
In fact you are credited as the author of the "Afterword" that addresses CIT's research.
You reference the ANC witnesses as if their identities were still unknown even though you had already seen the interviews CIT conducted with them and released a few weeks before the book went to print.
You specifically used the account of ANC employee Russell Roy (who didn't see the attack jet at all and only saw the C-130) to pose the question of whether or not the "2nd plane" he saw AND the north side approach jet the CITGO witnesses saw was one in the same, and was actually the E4B photographed by Linda Brookhart over DC that had just performed a tree-top level north side flyover timed perfectly with a south side impact of AA77. In essence a 3 plane theory when considering the C-130!
You wrote:
But you already knew that there most certainly WAS "more definitive evidence" in this regard that you had publicly acknowledged and even congratulated CIT on!
You knew his name was Russell Roy, you knew he described a propeller plane that turned away BEFORE the Pentagon and banked around and flew away NW over ANC, not across the river to DC where all evidence (including the alleged radar data) says the E4B stayed at all times.
And you knew he independently corroborated all the other ANC employees about the C-130 approaching from the NW, confirming what CIT had already determined based off statements from C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien, fatally contradicting the 2007 released 84th RADES data.
Surely you must see how it makes no sense to once again suggest the honest witnesses on the ground (who independently corroborate each other) were all wrong based off data that you had already deemed manipulated, and while also having accepted a precedent of OTHER government provided data being manipulated as well.
Right?
Especially while simultaneously using the same witnesses to suggest a north side E4B flyover that would obviously have to have been manipulated out of the data!
You must see the fatal contradictions in your assertions and behavior here.
Welcome to the jref forum.
I'm glad you joined because I have questions regarding your research and conclusions.
From what I have read regarding your work and prior statements, you have come to the conclusion that the 2006 released NTSB data and 2007 released 84th RADES data have been "doctored" or manipulated on some level and that the Pentagon security video is "not even reality" and that there is "no way" it is true.
You have also come to the conclusion that flashes in the CITGO security video prove a north side flyover of SOMETHING at the same time of the attack.
Is this still your position?
If not what made you change it and what made you originally have that position to begin with?
Also, just curious about your logic in this regard because it seems to be contradictory....but do you understand how if any government data has been shown to be manipulated or "doctored" as you put it, that this implicates a cover-up/deliberate deception and sets a clear precedent that logically, in the very least, must be acknowledged and heavily considered when looking at other government controlled and provided information?
Thanks in advance for your candid response to my questions.
Also....you are heavily cited throughout Mark Gaffney's brand new book about the E4B.
In fact you are credited as the author of the "Afterword" that addresses CIT's research.
You reference the ANC witnesses as if their identities were still unknown even though you had already seen the interviews CIT conducted with them and released a few weeks before the book went to print.
You specifically used the account of ANC employee Russell Roy (who didn't see the attack jet at all and only saw the C-130) to pose the question of whether or not the "2nd plane" he saw AND the north side approach jet the CITGO witnesses saw was one in the same, and was actually the E4B photographed by Linda Brookhart over DC that had just performed a tree-top level north side flyover timed perfectly with a south side impact of AA77. In essence a 3 plane theory when considering the C-130!
You wrote:
But you already knew that there most certainly WAS "more definitive evidence" in this regard that you had publicly acknowledged and even congratulated CIT on!
You knew his name was Russell Roy, you knew he described a propeller plane that turned away BEFORE the Pentagon and banked around and flew away NW over ANC, not across the river to DC where all evidence (including the alleged radar data) says the E4B stayed at all times.
And you knew he independently corroborated all the other ANC employees about the C-130 approaching from the NW, confirming what CIT had already determined based off statements from C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien, fatally contradicting the 2007 released 84th RADES data.
Surely you must see how it makes no sense to once again suggest the honest witnesses on the ground (who independently corroborate each other) were all wrong based off data that you had already deemed manipulated, and while also having accepted a precedent of OTHER government provided data being manipulated as well.
Right?
Especially while simultaneously using the same witnesses to suggest a north side E4B flyover that would obviously have to have been manipulated out of the data!
You must see the fatal contradictions in your assertions and behavior here.
I repented of all of those things long ago, now I too believe in the tooth fairy.