You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #15: U- turns and muddy waters [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. U- turns and muddy waters
My personal U-turn

dear Paul

is the withdrawal of the word "always". Yes you are right, it is at least you who takes one side, obviously in your timeline work. Here in the forum you were sharp in following the Saudi trail and now in this UAL93 question. That is not always. It is, let`s count, about .. two times ? The average would be about one time in two years ...
I am not going to argue against your right to have and to express an own opinion. Maybe I am astonished because it is so seldom.

"One example of this is the idea that no planes hit the WTC, but they were holograms instead." Yes again. That is why I am so eager to express clear opinions here myself against conspiracy theories. Including the "melting steel" explosions in the WTC when everybody knows how to bend or to break iron and steel without explosions and excessive heat - see any car accident, see wires, see bridges and railways in the summer heat. (BTW - I would have appreciated if you were participant in clear words at this issue too, Paul).

Back to the "two planes". You have good arguments but not good enough to dismiss John Does findings. Your Atta example is a good one. Let us take it again. What if a person similar to Atta has been seen 3 miles away ? That is why I want to keep the discussion open. We do know several planes were in the region - although they should have been out of that airspace, on the way to get landed or aleady on the ground. We even know the flight number of the executive jet, the name of the pilot of the C-130. We know fighter jets (at least one) were there, circling.

We do not know what they were all doing, we cannot bring them into a timeline and in a place line according to the witnesses positions. We do not know if the witnesses witnessed the UAL93 or other flights, if their accounts about time, location, size, direction were correct.

So we must not agree to the conclusion John Doe takes about two IDENTICAL planes, about proof of anything. I do not dismiss a U-turn, not two planes, not UAL93 and another plane and other possibilities.

I welcome the mass of evidence, of accounts. I appreciate to have more material to deal with. And I urgently asks everybody to join in demanding the Bushists: open your evidence ! Appeal to the ATCs: speak out in public what you have witnessed. To the pilots: give your timelines. What we need is a real commission, best by the U.N. organization because it was affected by the "war on terror" which was real war and still is.

Let us keep the conclusions open, but let us collect evidence and dismiss mud in the waters. Except if it is debris in Indian lake :))
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC