Reply #43: I'm certainly no "tetchier" than many who have posted on this thread

[Beam Me Up]

(and to which I will not reply).

I've spent years myself trying to get DUers to follow simple arguments, so I know the feeling, at least.

We have something in common.

As far as I know, the approach line that corresponds with the broken light poles and the damage path within the Pentagon is uncontroversial. And I have no reason to doubt that "the CIT witnesses" actually said what they appeared to say on camera.

Am I to take "uncontroversial" as a "yes" agreement to my question -- that the approach line can not vary by more than a few feet?

The discussion rapidly moves on from there -- in fact, I had already moved on from there. So it appears to me that your questions were disingenuous. But it's probably just because you are so sure that you have a winning argument.

How does this comment help us? I'm not being "disingenuous" at all. I'm trying to do precisely what your sig line suggests: establish facts from which discussion can proceed. This is not a "game" to me; this isn't about "having a winning argument" for me. At this point it is about whether or not you and I can establish some basic facts. It appears we have established that the CIT witnesses said what they said (without taking that any further); that, in other words, they aren't hoaxes of some sort. They are real people, actual witnesses who believe they saw what they have reported. It also appears you agree that the line of approach is very specific. Is this correct?


edit html