The Daily Paul has been archived.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 do not feel you adequately

(See in situ)

"I do not feel you adequately

"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."

While I can not say definitively where the tail section and wings are, I am going to guess they are mainly inside the building in little pieces like most of the rest of the plane. People keep acting and talking about this like it was a plane crash, it was not, it was a kamikaze attack. There's a big difference. In most plane crashes the pilot is trying to land as best he can and minimize damage. In a kamikaze attack the pilot is speeding up and trying to maximize damage. And they do not have to wonder what caused the plane to "crash", they know it was deliberately flown into a building.
If you can look through all those pictures and believe all those plane parts were planted, I'd like to know how they could do it, and just how many people you think were in on this. There were many people there, fireman, news reporters, policeman, etc., there is no evidence or witnesses to believe the parts were planted. And many things like this were there immediately and surely someone would have seen it get "planted" there.

The cab driver thing is a joke and to me is embarrassing for those guys to even use. They get this guy and try to harass him over and over into saying he's in on it or somewhere other than he believes he was, and he still doesn't. I completely fail to see how the taxi driver "spills the beans", and find it funny actually that someone would resort in desperation to even try to say that he did.

No skid marks because it didn't skid, and there are videos of commercial jets flying very low and fast on the first link I have in my post of evidence to show it's possible.

"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."
Well how can you say you are less than impressed with my eyewitness focus, when this whole entire theory is based on a handful of eyewitness testimony. Testimony of people who saw a plane flying toward the Pentagon. Testimony of only those who saw the plane but not the impact, they deliberately do not interview any of the many people who actually witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon. They provide no other evidence to support this theory, no eyewitnesses that saw the plane "continue on fly away", no evidence of planted plane parts, no evidence of where the plane continued on and flew away to. No other evidence whatsoever. So if you think my focus is on eyewitnesses (which I totally disagree with) and are less than impressed with that, you should easily not put any credit into that theory. The whole issue with eyewitness discrepancies to a plane flying 500 mph in the sky I have explained.

The deal with the 2.3 trillion dollars has nothing to do with whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, hence why I did not comment on it.

I disagree that my emphasis is on eyewitnesses. There is much more to my evidence than every eyewitness testimony. I don't deny that I did intend to set people up to fail, like I said I believe I have done the research and know what evidence is out there. But what better way to be sure than to challenge people who I know have researched this as well and disagree with my position to show me what evidence they have that has them convinced. To me that is pretty apt to bring out any evidence I am missing and not taking into consideration. And my attitude stems from the constant personal attacks when I try to discuss this issue, it gets aggravating. But still I've tried to stay as civil with those who are civil to me as I can.