IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
The Firefight Book - Pft Reaction?

Alex_V
post Jul 23 2008, 07:35 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 8-November 07
Member No.: 2,458



Having read from various sources a little bit of the description of the recent 'Firefight' book I wondered if it had been read and considered by anyone involved with Pilots For Truth. The book is apparently a detailed account of the experiences of firefighters to the Pentagon incident. I haven't read it myself, but short excerpts from the book seem to document bodies of passengers, luggage, plane parts etc, which obviously is potentially contradictory to a flyover theory.

How does the content of the book fit in with Pilots For Truth's campaign? Will information from the book be incorporated into future PfT material?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jul 23 2008, 10:47 AM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Alex_V @ Jul 23 2008, 04:35 AM) *
Having read from various sources a little bit of the description of the recent 'Firefight' book I wondered if it had been read and considered by anyone involved with Pilots For Truth. The book is apparently a detailed account of the experiences of firefighters to the Pentagon incident. I haven't read it myself, but short excerpts from the book seem to document bodies of passengers, luggage, plane parts etc, which obviously is potentially contradictory to a flyover theory.

How does the content of the book fit in with Pilots For Truth's campaign? Will information from the book be incorporated into future PfT material?


Just curious. Did the authors of this book incorporate any of P4T's information, even critically? Did they even acknowledge such information exists?

This is the first I've even heard of this book but due to the inconsistencies P4T and CIT have uncovered, any book which purports to be an accurate history of the Pentagon events and yet ignores this research can't even pretend to be objective. As usual, the media propaganda machine chooses the "nothing to see there, folks" approach to those who question the official narrative. They don't even acknowledge that such questions exist thus implicitly suggesting any such questions have no merit, aren't even worthy of acknowledgement, much less consideration. As with all propaganda, it begins with the assumption that the basic facts of the narrative are already known and are above question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jul 23 2008, 01:16 PM
Post #3


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (Alex_V @ Jul 23 2008, 11:35 AM) *
Having read from various sources a little bit of the description of the recent 'Firefight' book I wondered if it had been read and considered by anyone involved with Pilots For Truth. The book is apparently a detailed account of the experiences of firefighters to the Pentagon incident. I haven't read it myself, but short excerpts from the book seem to document bodies of passengers, luggage, plane parts etc, which obviously is potentially contradictory to a flyover theory.

How does the content of the book fit in with Pilots For Truth's campaign? Will information from the book be incorporated into future PfT material?


"bodies of passengers, luggage, plane parts etc, which obviously is potentially contradictory to a flyover theory."

Alex,

Can you tell me then how the plane hit 5 light poles, showed up low and level in the suveillance video, hit the fence/generator trailer with its right wing/engine, entered into the first floor, leaving behind an FDR that produced tons of irreconcilable and anomalous data all while approaching from the north side of the Citgo?

I know it is hard to believe that they would be this brazen and this thought out in their plan, but if the plane was on the north side of the Citgo and pulled up right before or after the explosion and Roosevelt Roberts saw a silver commercial aircraft jet very low over the south parking lot banking out and around AFTER the explosion, then logic would dictate that the plane did not hit the building and the "bodies of passengers, luggage, plane parts etc, which obviously is potentially contradictory to a flyover theory." were planted or were mistaken as such during the rescue/recovery process.

You ask how?

The Pentagon was under "renovation" in the EXACT section that was allegedly hit by a jet filled with "passengers, luggage, and plane parts". The "renovation" was scheduled for completion that week and there were lots of UNOCCUPIED spaces at the Pentagon. This would allow the perfect opportunity to plant incendiary devices or projectiles within or outside of the Pentagon and would allow them to plant even the most simple of things such as luggage and plane parts. The most puzzling would be passengers in seats, and again this could be a lie, a mistake, or they actually went so far as to plant a section of seats with cadavers waiting to be blown up or engulfed in flames. Obviously they were bringing in large pieces of equipment and furniture, so a large crate with freshly unfrozen cadavers being wheeled into an unoccupied room could go undetected the day before 9/11.

What is your stance on what happened at the Pentagon, Alex?

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jul 23 2008, 05:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jul 25 2008, 12:50 AM
Post #4





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Nothing in the book even remotely refutes the evidence we present.

It amounts to nothing but propaganda.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shadowmoon
post Jul 25 2008, 06:18 AM
Post #5





Group: Guest
Posts: 5
Joined: 26-June 08
Member No.: 3,618



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jul 25 2008, 12:50 AM) *
Nothing in the book even remotely refutes the evidence we present.

It amounts to nothing but propaganda.


I need more than just a claim of "propaganda".

What exculpatory evidence do you have that proves the over 150 interviews were fraudulent or "propaganda"?

How many of those 150+ interviews of firemen and/or resuce workers have you interviewed?

How many of those 150+ interviews that you did undertake (assuming you did interview some of them) express any reservations whatsoever about what happened?

The scales of credibility - on one side your half dozen interviews vs over 150 - are not balancing in your favor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 25 2008, 07:00 AM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (shadowmoon @ Jul 23 2008, 08:18 AM) *
I need more than just a claim of "propaganda".

What exculpatory evidence do you have that proves the over 150 interviews were fraudulent or "propaganda"?

Well do a little more reading around here and follow some of the links to other worthwhile sites.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shadowmoon
post Jul 25 2008, 09:14 AM
Post #7





Group: Guest
Posts: 5
Joined: 26-June 08
Member No.: 3,618



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jul 25 2008, 07:00 AM) *
Well do a little more reading around here and follow some of the links to other worthwhile sites.


I have and still want to know how many of those 150+ interviews of firemen and/or resuce workers you have interviewed.

"Credidibility" has a foundation that includes interviewing a broad spectrum of witnesses in any event. It doesn't appear the "research" team associated with this web page has done that.

Have they?

This post has been edited by shadowmoon: Jul 25 2008, 09:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 25 2008, 12:41 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (shadowmoon @ Jul 25 2008, 07:14 AM) *
"Credidibility" has a foundation that includes interviewing a broad spectrum of witnesses in any event. It doesn't appear the "research" team associated with this web page has done that.

Thanks for the old news Alex.

Post #18

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746227

P.S. This is a forum comprised of individuals. There's a statement in bold lettering at the top of each page here BTW. Shadowmoon's assumptions about the " 'research' team" and its credibility remain assumptions. I think we all know what people say about those...

[Moving to debate- this thread now appears more debate-oriented than Pentagon-specific]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jul 25 2008, 01:02 PM
Post #9


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (shadowmoon @ Jul 25 2008, 11:18 AM) *
I need more than just a claim of "propaganda".


Can you tell me then how the plane hit 5 light poles, showed up low and level in the suveillance video, hit the fence/generator trailer with its right wing/engine, entered into the first floor, leaving behind an FDR that produced tons of irreconcilable and anomalous data all while approaching from the north side of the Citgo?

You seemed to bypass that.

QUOTE
What exculpatory evidence do you have that proves the over 150 interviews were fraudulent or "propaganda"?


Over DC, EoP, ONA, NoC, Over South parking.

Who says they were fraudelant? They were people who were fooled. That was the idea. Most all of them arrived after the fact to then be told by people for 6-7 years that it was missile, which only reinforced their belief that it was a plane, when people on the impact side were fooled by...a plane.

QUOTE
How many of those 150+ interviews of firemen and/or resuce workers have you interviewed?


You have a list? We've interviewed firefighters and rescue/recovery. Some believe it hit and some don't. Does it really matter? Are you that unscientific, that you are using the accounts of people who didn't see the plane impact to prove the plane had impacted? You should just admit to us and everyone right now, that you just WANT TO BELIEVE that a plane had hit there. You are using a very unscientific method to go about it.

QUOTE
How many of those 150+ interviews that you did undertake (assuming you did interview some of them) express any reservations whatsoever about what happened?


Who cares? I don't really care what any of those people believe about what happened. That is irrelevant to what people actually saw.

QUOTE
The scales of credibility - on one side your half dozen interviews vs over 150 - are not balancing in your favor.


Yet, you haven't cited one.

Please. Are you listening to yourself? How many of that 150 saw the plane approach on the south side of the Citgo and the alleged impact?

And it isn't a half dozen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jul 25 2008, 01:09 PM
Post #10


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (shadowmoon @ Jul 25 2008, 02:14 PM) *
I have and still want to know how many of those 150+ interviews of firemen and/or resuce workers you have interviewed.

"Credidibility" has a foundation that includes interviewing a broad spectrum of witnesses in any event. It doesn't appear the "research" team associated with this web page has done that.

Have they?


Sounds like BJE.

So according to you we have to ignore the fact that the plane approached over DC, East of the Potomac, over the Navy Annex, on the north side of the Citgo, pulled up and was seen AFTER the explosion banking out around the south parking lot all because YOU demand that a bunch of people who got there after the fact prove that a plane hit? Their "belief", which was heavily tainted by the news repeating that a plane hit the Pentagon, supersedes the witnesses who document a flight path that DISPROVE an impact???

We have spoken with a retired fire captain who was there and had been on 5 plane crashes in his 29 years including the Air Florida crash at 14th st bridge and believes there is no way that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. That is enough for me as far as the inside goes.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jul 26 2008, 02:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 25 2008, 01:31 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (shadowmoon @ Jul 25 2008, 04:18 AM) *
I need more than just a claim of "propaganda".

What exculpatory evidence do you have that proves the over 150 interviews were fraudulent or "propaganda"?

How many of those 150+ interviews of firemen and/or resuce workers have you interviewed?

How many of those 150+ interviews that you did undertake (assuming you did interview some of them) express any reservations whatsoever about what happened?

The scales of credibility - on one side your half dozen interviews vs over 150 - are not balancing in your favor.

Hm, 3 posts and we get "Pinch" and "Firefight..."

Have you got a sourced list of those "over 150" or "150+" witnesses then shadowmoon? I'm assuming it must be in a book that I don't own, written by an officer with clear ties to the US Army SOC.

Are you aware of this US SOCOM military report shadowmoon?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11687

Now, re: the "scales of credibility" above:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...popularity.html
---
Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jul 25 2008, 01:35 PM
Post #12


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



How many people posting in this thread have read this book? Obviously debating its 'merits' without having read it is fairly pointless.

That said, however, my first two questions (see post #2 above) remain not only unanswered but not even acknowledged by shadowmoon. Instead, she/he wants to insinuate that if said "150 witnesses" haven't been interviewed by us then it follows logically that there is no grounds for labeling a set of information "propaganda". I'm willing to accept shadowmoon's contention that, "Credidibility" has a foundation that includes interviewing a broad spectrum of witnesses in any event." However, I would add, that "credibility" must include more than "interviewing a broad spectrum of witnesses." This leaves aside such questions as the witnesses associations (by whom they are employed, for example), limited only to what they actually witnessed (here-say and assumptions clearly indicated if not stricken from the record), whether or not their account was questioned either at the time of the event or subsequent to it (by agents of the FBI, for example), whether or not their account is being challenged by informed cross-examination or contradicted by established physical evidence -- and whether or not they were speaking under oath. Absent this, the "credibility" of a witness's account will forever remain in dispute. So, yes, by all means, lets bring up credibility as a relevant issue.

I would be quite happy if an investigation that would establish this level of credibility could be arranged -- where ALL the evidence could be placed in the public record. But, of course, we haven't had that kind of an investigation, now have we? On the contrary, we're told there is no need. We're told all the salient facts are already known and established. Nothing to see here, move along.

I have no problem calling a book, even a book I've not read, which does not question these foundational assumptions "propaganda." None what so ever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jul 25 2008, 01:45 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Shadowmoon!

I am writing in response to your thought provoking question. Even if some plane crashedinto the Pentagon and deposited bodies, luggage, plane wreckage, etc. that is not inconsistent with the work of CIT and PFT when their Pentagon work is confined as set forth below.

1. I think there are three basic analytical steps: (1) What in the Official Explanation ("OE") could not have happened; (2) What happened instead; and (3) The identity of the perpetrators of what happened instead.

2. The OE says that the plane carrying the FDR that produced the data released by the FAA damaged the Pentagon by striking it on the south flight path, and that this was the only plane that could have done so. These are three pillars of the OE and eyewitnesses seeing the results of some plane crash merely adds a fourth pillar to the OE.

3. PFT's (Rob et. al.'s) FDR analysis shows that that FDR could not have been on any plane that struck the Pentagon and could not have been on any plane using the south flight path to do so. This gets us past Step One. The OE conclusion that the plane carrying the FDR struck the Pentagon using the south flight path cannot be true. Note that PFT officially does not venture into Step Two - what happened instead, although they rightfully reserve the right to speculate on it but when they do they always clearly label it as speculation.

3. CIT's eyewitnesses show that there was a low flying plane in the area using the north flight path at the same time that the Pentagon was struck by something. Because the OE is stuck with the south flight path, one has to conclude that there was a second plane in the area that could have struck the Pentagon and that gets us past Step One by disproving that only one plane was in a position to strike the Pentagon.

4. This is not enough additional evidence to get us past Step Two - what happened instead of the OE. CIT's decoy plane theory is plausible. However, the purpose of the decoy would have been to cover up a strike on and/or damage to the Pentagon caused by a missile, an internal explosion, or a first, second, third or millionth plane, and we still don't know which.

5. The CIT guys are younger, more energetic, more enthusiastic and perhaps less wise than me. So they venture into Step Two and speculate that what happened instead was that no plane struck the Pentagon but instead flew over with the assistance of a decoy. That does not detract from the value of their work in corroborating PFT's work and getting us past Step One.

6. We again can't pass Step Three because there is no evidence other than motive and opportunity to pin the rose on anyone.

7. For what it's worth, I think that whatever struck and damaged the Pentagon was remotely guided but I am speculating and can't even get past Step One with this.

8. To summarize, even if some plane struck the Pentagon and deposited bodies. luggage and plane wreckage that was een by 150 witnesses, there are still three things in the OE which did not happen - the plane carrying the FDR that produced the data released by the FAA did not strike the Pentagon on the south flight path and that striking plane was not the only plane that could have done so. So there is something more and this has to be resolved by further and proper investigation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jul 25 2008, 02:12 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Alex_V @ Jul 23 2008, 07:35 AM) *
document bodies of passengers,


Does it explain the chain of custody of the bodies? Did they do DNA testing on site? Or does it just document "bodies"... .and then later state they were transported to a military base where over 200 govt and military workers id'ed the bodies as we have been told.

QUOTE
luggage


Any pictures? If so, that'll be a first.

QUOTE
plane parts


Any serial numbers which can be matched to the mx logs of N644AA?

QUOTE
etc,


What is "etc"? Anything tangible? Any hard data?

QUOTE
which obviously is potentially contradictory to a flyover theory.


"potentially" i suppose, but until the above questions are answered in full, there isnt much potential except an appeal to emotion.

QUOTE
How does the content of the book fit in with Pilots For Truth's campaign?


Quite nicely i presume. We are seeking the truth after all. Hopefully the book can answer the above questions? Or is it all hearsay statements? Any hard data? Do we have to buy the book? Or do they give it out for free as we do all our presentations... Are they making money off 9/11? Do we have to buy "truth"?

QUOTE
Will information from the book be incorporated into future PfT material?


See answer to above question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jul 25 2008, 02:25 PM
Post #15





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Rob!

You ask some damn good questions in the above post that demand answers from a new and proper investigation.

I am particularly troubled by the lack of normal forensic details - the basis for the ID of the bodies and the identification of the plane parts as part of a specific plane. For some reason they don't what us to know whose bodies and what plane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 25 2008, 02:32 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (shadowmoon @ Jul 29 2008, 07:14 AM) *
"Credidibility" has a foundation that includes interviewing a broad spectrum of witnesses in any event. It doesn't appear the "research" team associated with this web page has done that.


Weren't most of the witnesses either DoD personel, employees of USA today or bona-fide neoconservatives? And as Rob points out, DNA evidence is worthless without chain of evidence. Someone could have toasted those people anywhere, and delivered the remains to pathology to be identified. (Besides, DNA is worthless for identification purposes once heated to 130-150 degrees C ... yet they claim the fire was extreme enough to vaporise plane parts.)

When there is solid evidence, i.e. the FDR data, I don't put all that much faith in eyewitness accounts, especially from witnesses employed by the government or the media. There is more than one file-type in the AA77 FDR, and as I understand it they all agree that the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon or the light poles, flew north of the Citgo station, and was not flying parallel to the ground as the Pentagon security camera shows. Either the FDR data is legit and the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, or the data is bogus and the government is trying to pull a fast one on us. Either way, what use are eyewitnesses that agree with the government account when we know it's fictional and that the perps have a vested interest in providing corroboration for their own story?

Here we are, almost 7 years later, America is bankrupt and speeding toward h@ll in a handbasket, the evidence that 9-11 was a made-for-TV-movie to goad the American people into endless war against the oil-rich Muslim world is overwhelming, and still we have people defending the official story by nitpicking about luggage.

I don't get it. The only reason I'm not screaming at the top of my lungs anymore at how obvious the ruse was and how totally f&$ked we all are, is I'm just tired. Tired of all the apathy around me. The overwhelming willingness of a majority of people to go along with this completely ridiculous lie in the face of so much contrary evidence and lay down waiting for that chip to be implanted in their arm ... which if you mention you are a conspiracy-theorist-nut-job, but in 5 or 10 years people will be going down to the clinic to get their chip just like they go down to the gas station here in Japan to have a GPS device installed in their car (the tolls are cheaper if you are "in the system" here) ... what was the point? That because some people supposedly found luggage in the Pentagon wreckage I should erase all I know about the unbroken windows and parked cars where total destruction and plane wreckage should have been (but is not) in Pentagon photos, the overwhelming evidence that the Towers were intentionlly demolished, the "23 minutes too soon" BBC broadcast, the ISI wire, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. and go back to believing that Osama bin Laden directed 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan??? THAT's a laugh.

That's an interesting little thing about 9-11 ... you have a lot of people going from believing the official story to not believing it. You don't have anyone reverting back the other way 'round though. No one, once they see the world for what it is, can go back to believing the lie.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 25 2008, 02:32 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 23 2008, 02:41 PM) *

I just loved this bit in that post:

QUOTE
"RICK NEWMAN is an award-winning journalist and staff writer for U.S. News & World Report, where he has written dozens of cover stories . He has also written for The Washington Post and many other publications and has appeared on numerous network TV programs."
Sounds kinda MSM/Mockingbird to me.

That term that I have highlighted, I bet the writer of that resume did not have in mind quite the meaning that I put on it. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 26 2008, 01:55 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jul 25 2008, 12:32 PM) *
That's an interesting little thing about 9-11 ... you have a lot of people going from believing the official story to not believing it. You don't have anyone reverting back the other way 'round though. No one, once they see the world for what it is, can go back to believing the lie.

Well Sanders,

Have you got your ladle and "boat" ready- there is this one guy featured at the top on Mr. Roberts' webpage(s). That's if you believe that Mikey Metz believes that he wasted a year believing that he was a "truther."

Errr...

http://extruther.blogspot.com/2008/01/911-myths-updated.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 26 2008, 03:55 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Hmmm.

(Thanx for the link)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alex_V
post Jul 26 2008, 09:59 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 8-November 07
Member No.: 2,458



Interesting responses. Nobody claims to have read the book, or seems to indicate that they want to. This seems to me a crying shame, particularly given it directly tackles a key incident in PilotsForTruth's campaign. Maybe it would be worth getting a copy?

How is it possible to claim that a book is propaganda without reading it? Do those who make this claim have some evidence on which to base it? If not I think this is a totally unreasonable way to proceed. And if I may say, slight evidence of a siege mentality when it comes to the general issues. Why not welcome a new source of evidence?

I can't answer the many questions about specifics in the book - I have only seen very brief excerpts online. I don't know what it may say about flightpaths or their legitimacy - I just find it absolutely baffling that you guys wouldn't want to know!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2019 - 09:41 AM