BS, I don't normally bother to spend any time contemplating what you write, but I would like to point out to you that, when you paraphrase me 'do you still say that guy is just crazy?', you are not only directly putting words in my mouth, but also creating a strawman.
Where did I say that you have to be crazy to be hold faulty ideas? I didn't. You did.
What I said was that no planers displayed 'massively-faulty beliefs and resistance to learn'.
Bill, if your argument is that, because a live reporter first mistakenly identified the second jet as a 'police helicopter', then made a correction a few seconds later, that she is somehow conspiring to trick her viewers, your argument is based on faulty logic. (just in case you're not following - since it was indeed a plane, not a helicopter, her self-correction was appropriate and timely. If she were actually part of a giant psy-ops exercise, she'd simply have read from the script and called it a plane right away. Why introduce an element of doubt when there was no need to? I suppose in your garbled mindset she mistakenly said 'helicopter' instead of reading from the script - but then you'd have to admit that she made a mistake either way - so you're no further ahead than before)
If you then posit that no amount of subsequent eyewitness testimony about the second plane, no amount of forensic evidence, can alter your belief in no-planes, then you are indeed highly resistant to learning.
So you have perfectly illustrated the cognitive problems shared by no-planers. For that I thank you.
