Conspiracy v. fact 9/11

[tomk52]

32. Well, I have to agree that this is strange...

1) Motorcycles T-bone cars that turn in front of them every day of the week. When asked why they turned into the motorcycle's path, the driver invariably says "I didn't see him."

Perhaps, "I didn't see it" ain't exactly the same as "it wasn't there."

Ya think...?

2) If 50 people don't see something, but a video of the incident is available, then the one video trumps the 50 eyewitnesses every single time. And twice on Tues, Sept 11, 2001.

This is exactly the situation with the "explosions" missing from the audio tapes.

Nebulous accounts of "explosions" (of undefined strength, undefined timing & undefined number) are trumped by their specific & exact absence (just before collapse began) on dozens of recorded audio tracks.

In both case, the lesson is the same:

Recording instruments don't get distracted. They don't make mistakes. They don't lie. They don't forget. They don't even "misremember". And they don't have political axes to grind.

People are subject to all of those foibles.

3) the strangest part of all ...

You are invoking the testimony of a person who says, with absolute & admirable certain, that an American Airlines jet hit the building.

For all the world, it seems to me like you're trying to generate some argument that either a) it wasn't AA77 that hit the building, or b) someone fabricated a couple of video frames or c) who the hell knows (because you won't say.)

This is now the 4th time that I've asked you to state clearly what significant conclusion changes based on this issue.