Comment: If it was as smoky as April Gallop claims

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "I do not feel you adequately (see in situ)

If it was as smoky as April Gallop claims

anyone could have tampered with or planted parts. Wearing a uniform doesn’t guarantee that person legitimately represents the fire department or police department; if they are legitimate, that doesn’t guarantee they are acting in the best interest of an investigation. I posted on another recent thread how a 9/11 debunker falsely assumed OJ murdered Nicole Brown. I pointed out that post trial research by private investigator William Dear revealed how LAPD tampered with the evidence and omitted other key evidence so that any assumption of OJ’s guilt was faulty to begin with. (Dear concludes OJ’s son Jason committed the crime). This debunker then backpedaled out of saying OJ was guilty. The withholding of vital 9/11 videos is tantamount to hiding evidence and increases suspicion of an inside job and that they are deliberately hiding something. All it would take is one or two uniformed men to plant evidence in the Pentagon in a smoky cloud where no one could observe them.

The cab driver seemed pretty caught unaware and it didn’t seem like he was being harassed. I think it’s a matter of interpretation of his behavior.

My whole point about eyewitness testimony about the north approach was to say there is another story also backed by eyewitnesses. One must take the total picture into consideration along with a logical approach. If the north approach fits more logically with everything else, I am going to weigh that as a factor. I am still bothered by the lack of evidence of a tail section or wings, the configuration of the small size hole, lack of skid marks etc.; I will read your explanation re the latter.

While you may view the missing 2.3 trillion dollar as a separate issue from the plane/missile, no plane debate, that is just one more piece of the puzzle I think should be considered as it is an awfully strange coincidence which may or may not relate to the damaged section. I am viewing it from a top down approach (something you may have heard in Wall Street investing jargon); you conversely are taking a bottoms up approach. They are two different avenues with one not necessarily being better than the other but more suited to how we each prefer to find solutions and answers. That is why we don’t view this issue with the same pair of glasses. You will run into resistance from others who take the same approach as I do.

The constant personal attacks likely result from DPrs not knowing if they are dealing with trolls and government shills. It’s hard to tell the good guys from the bad ones. I think you would get less insults and better results as far as civil debate next time by seeking some kind of common ground despite the differing opinions. I think we have managed to have a civil discussion so I know it’s possible.