I'm not crazy about Deet's skills in being interviewed. He stops and hesitates and "um's" too much. And his use of the word incinerary is so wrong it brings the level of ignorance by this guy into focus. The term is "incendiary". A freak'n missle hit the pentagon. Those missles are no where the size of a 757, thus no lightpoles down, no grass disturbed, etc. What a ridiculous conversation about nothing of substance here. Move alone folks........not Charlie's fault the guy was not a good guest.
But if Michael Rivero says there were all sorts of witnesses to a commercial airliner flying in that area, then you have to ignore all that conflicting information .
It's like Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, whom I had interviewed on another topic, and he had been in a debate over whether WTC 1 and 2 came down by airplane strikes and fire, or controlled demolition.
He acknowledged that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, and given that's part of the evidence, why would you even waste time trying to find natural explanations for the downing of WTC 1 and 2?
Everything has to hang together, and in case there are too many inconsistencies, that can perhaps point to other things, like image and video fakery, for instance, in addition to whatever may have hit the Pentagon and towers.
2 comments:
I'm not crazy about Deet's skills in being interviewed. He stops and hesitates and "um's" too much. And his use of the word incinerary is so wrong it brings the level of ignorance by this guy into focus.
The term is "incendiary".
A freak'n missle hit the pentagon. Those missles are no where the size of a 757, thus no lightpoles down, no grass disturbed, etc.
What a ridiculous conversation about nothing of substance here. Move alone folks........not Charlie's fault the guy was not a good guest.
But if Michael Rivero says there were all sorts of witnesses to a commercial airliner flying in that area, then you have to ignore all that conflicting information .
It's like Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, whom I had interviewed on another topic, and he had been in a debate over whether WTC 1 and 2 came down by airplane strikes and fire, or controlled demolition.
He acknowledged that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, and given that's part of the evidence, why would you even waste time trying to find natural explanations for the downing of WTC 1 and 2?
Everything has to hang together, and in case there are too many inconsistencies, that can perhaps point to other things, like image and video fakery, for instance, in addition to whatever may have hit the Pentagon and towers.
Post a Comment