Nordic wrote:
why are you equating controlled demolition with holograms?
are you serious, or just trying some extremely lame-ass iinsulting technique? that kind of shit won't fly here.
Okay--more reasoned answer this time.
I should have been more clear in my comment. I don't think CD and holograms are equally valid. My point was merely that chasing down these theories to show that there was insider knowledge of or participation in the attack is ignoring that we already have that evidence through the air defense issue.
Of course, there is actually evidence for CD--haven't seen any plausible evidence for the holograms. I think Dr Jones has done some great work on the CD issue and have produced a lot of compelling evidence if you are already open to the idea that CD is possible. I'm not seeing it convince many "non-believers," but I'm not really sure what else could be produced regarding evidence to convince those people.
On the other hand, I think if more people heard about the air defense issues they would be more likely to start questioning the officially-sanctioned 9/11 theory. The issue of the drills/exercises, the radar confusion due to the false blips, the moving around of fighter squadrons due to the drills/exercises, how the interceptors were deployed, what happened to the Pentagon, etc, these are areas that might be more fruitful. Of course, this is my pet theory and I'm sure we all feel that way about whatever our pet theory is.
It goes without saying that the more evidence we can come up with, the better. So if we can somehow prove CD without a doubt plus whatever else, you obviously would have a stronger case that there was insider knowledge/participation. However, if all we are looking for is any evidence that there was insider knowledge/participation, I think we have it with the air defense issue--both insider knowledge AND participation.
Hope that clears up what I was trying to say with my earlier post.






