Why don't you use 3D reconstruction and show us then?
Expect BCR to do something you never do: Respond positively by providing the evidence you demand.
In that case, I predict that you will ignore or handwave that evidence.
You just destroyed your credibility.
*yawn*
You don't understand 7th-grade arithmetic.
If you maintain it's wrong, you have to show why. You'd get laughed out of the debating hall for this response. Can any of you pro-official version people analyze it?
Yes, I can/could do it, but it was a
moving of goal posts on your part to introduce someone else's calculation when you hadn't even finished showing your own calculation (you know, one accompanied by a nice image with lines drawn and points labelled, so we know what the heck you are talking about). Once we finish your work, I'll be happy to move on to the next goal post, for example that page that you linked to. I am not going to chase your moving goal posts, however.
I did the work myself and I showed it to be valid. You're just playing dumb about it.
You didn't even show it, period. You feigned inability to upload an image, I claim you are even unable to draw an image.
You didn't comment on the way the taxi driver changed his story and then denied the obvious evidence that he was where he first said he was.
http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm
Because you moved the goal post to off-topic territory in order to avoid being shown how your geometry of the security cam photo, Pentagon and plane was faulty.
There are plausible scenarios that would explain the poles, the witnesses, the DNA and the plane parts so they aren't conclusive proof.
No. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
No. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
No. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
The smoke that can be seen at the right of the picture is consistent with a missile being fired.
http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm
No. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
Here's a plausible scenario that would explain the light poles.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632
No. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
Yes, although you have no evidence that they were. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
Plane parts can be planted before and after the crash.
Yes, although you have no evidence that they were. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
This is about the fourth time I've posted this info about what may have happened to the passengers. In this link there's a documentary entitled "Painful Deceptions".
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
It's not my problem if you try to move the goal post to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
In the last five minutes of part one a possible explanation of what happened to the passengers is put forth.
Here it is on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wkyEDIxTk
No. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
Start watching it at about the 42:15 time mark.
I won't, because that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
The evidence shows that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. We aren't in a position to know exactly what the government did with the passengers but our not knowing doesn't make the evidence go away. This is pretty basic.
No. But that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
There seem to be a lot of people who just believe what they want to be the truth and disregard the evidence. It is pretty horrible so I can understand why some people go into denial. Here's a video I suggest they watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKxOiUVQ3gE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WtT0FZ7NAY
I won't, because that, too, is a goal post moved to off-topic territory. Let's stick with the security cam, okay?
So FatFreddy, please draw us an image which enables you to explain and us to understand what you measured. Then we can debate if your math and conclusions are faulty. Or rather, why they are faulty.
