Reply #9: "To me", "I think", "It seems"

[medienanalyse]

dear Paul, dear JohnDoeII,

I would love so much to join in exchanging opinions about the flight route of the plane(s). But curiously I have problems in understanding how a plane technically can U-turn with a speed of 7 miles per minute. And I have problems with one plane at two places in the same time - because the impact followed the sighting immediately according to the witnesses from both sides/sites.

What the heck has happened? One plane at two places in trhe same time? This sounds so familiar. Hmmmh.
It sounds like hijackers being in Afghanistan an Hamburg in the same time, being in Boston and Florida in the sme time and so on.

Why, dear Paul, are you always so kean to decide ("to me ...") which version is right and which is wrong ? Why dont you, why dont we just acknowledge that there are two versions (at least) existing ?

What is John Doe`s work about ? It is the fruitfull statement that the official version is not consistent. It would be, like in all the other cases, if the officials would DISCUSS and dismiss other versions. But they do not. They just tell the public: "this is what really happened."

"this is what really happened." is a sentence which earns all my disgust from whom it ever comes as long as he does not provide the evidence for it AND the discussion of evidence contradicting the statements.

What is our task ? Not to state "real events". We are not the owners of the provess. We are not the owners of the evidence which would solve so many questions in one second. I.e. here the RADAR-screens tapings from ARTCC Cleveland, Johnstown, i.e. the voice redorders and FDRs, i.e. fotos and videos and so on. Our knowledge is not secondhand, it is third hand: witnesses who are quoted by newspapers.

So let us demand the evidence. John Doe provided good questions to do so by stating the contradictions.