The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I am less impressed with your eyewitness focus

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Whether the plane or the (see in situ)

I am less impressed with your eyewitness focus

vs. following events from a point of logic.

I do not feel you adequately responded to the lack of evidence with respect to the missing tail section and wings of flight 77. There being “parts” is not convincing as those could have been planted.

You did not respond to the cab driver’s spilling the beans which I repost here:
Remember the cab driver whose cab was supposedly hit by a falling light pole? he has spilled the beans, the coward shill MrBungal won't touch this one, wonder why?

I do not recall any adequate explanation about the lack of skid marks (such lack is highly implausible to me given the proximity to the ground of the supposed jet).

You did not adequately explain the “north of Citgo” flight path issue…reposting humanic’s “ This plane approached on a "north of Citgo" flight path which makes it impossible for it to have struck the five light poles or caused the directional damage to the building itself.

You too easily dismissed Jill Booth’s questions including the 2.3 trillion and the fact that the section that housed the accountants looking for the missing trillions was the very section destroyed along with the people. Do you think that was just a coincidence? Why was it such a limited point of destruction and why there?

I get that your thread is about evidence, but if you are going to convince anyone you are genuine seeker of truth, such issues need to be addressed over and above your eyewitness emphasis. If you were sitting on a jury, you are going to look at the entire picture. You state, “I've done the research, that's why I've issued this challenge. Because I know the only thing anyone can produce as evidence is opinions.” By your own words your intent seems to setup a “fail” from the standpoint of evidence. You state you want a civil discussion, but your attitude is generally condescending which invites the opposite of what you seek; and you discredit yourself by failing to adequately respond to others who have legitimate points.

I view Phillip Marshall’s case as tragic as I am sure he was on the side of truth. Yes his opinions are worth considering, but I am not always convinced by the so-called experts. Sometimes I find that the kernel of truth comes from the least expected places like the cab driver mentioned above.