[�]

� claims it wre the grey aliens, because they told him so

[Millennium]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
<STRONG>Maxelson, are you trying to tell me there were thousands of people that witnessed the pentagon crash? I think you are dreaming.</STRONG>

I personally know several people who saw the crash with their own eyes. I know other people who lived miles away but still heard it. And I have no reason to doubt these people's integrity.

1. Funny that the crash happened in the one spot on the pentagon that was least populated.

That's called blind luck. Believe it or not, these things do happen sometimes.

2. I have seen wreckage of 747s that slammed into the ground and there is usually a large section (tail or otherwise) left in the wreckage

This is the freaking Pentagon we're talking about. Classified stuff everywhere. I can't say I agree with a lot of that, but if you don't think they'd have a crack cleanup and security crew on hand within minutes, then you're underestimating them.

By the way, I saw some early photos of the Pentagon wreckage, and there were sections of the plane there. They didn't last long.

3. No one said that the people on that flight were not killed, just that we (I) doubt that this plane actually hit the pentagon.

"We (I)." Interesting. Who is "we"?

5. The news reports first mentioned a truck bomb. Then a small aircraft...not a jetliner....sure there was confusion but even a fire cheif on the scene was wondering where all the peices of the plane ended up.

The news reports of the truck bomb had nothing to do with the Pentagon. There were rumors of a truck bomb exploding outside the State Department, but these rumors were later shown to be false. I think you are confusing these rumors with the Pentagon.

6. don't tell me that the government is without reproach...we have unknowingly injected radioactive materials into innocent civilians, we have, done so much harm to so many in the name of national security that you would be a fool not to question the legitamacy of the "news" items the goverment is feeding you.

Oh, I do doubt the government, very much. I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them, and I doubt the wisdom of trusting them even that much. But I don't doubt what I, and people I trust, have seen.

It is your duty as an american to question the motivation of our illegitimate elected officials.

They were legitimately elected. Get over it.

And yeah, I've questioned their motivations. I've given the matter a lot of tought, and although I certainly see some people in the government with malicious motives (most notably Ashcroft), it would see to my that by and large, the government is blameless in regards to this particular issue.

Like I said.....refusing to consider the most remote possibility of wrongoing on our part makes you unpatriotic and just another sheep.

I did question them. And I am satisfied with the answers I believe myself to be found. Don't be so arrogant as to think that all rational people will instantly agree with you on everything.

All of you people on this board who are not even able to entertain the thought for a moment that we might be being lied to are just the kind of people that the shadow government (admitted to exist by Bush) are in need of. Without you, there is no case, no believability. I am not saying that you should believe it, just that it should be considered as a possibility. Oh yeah, and once again, look up th reichstag fire.

Like I said, I did consider it a possibility. And I did give it a lot of thought. And I came to my conclusions through a rational process.

I also understand that some people might go through a similar process and come to a different conclusion than I did. You would do well to realize the same. You are not the pinnacle of intellect or logic, any more than I am, and not all rational people will come to your particular conclusions.

[TNproud2b]

Maybe the French could show us how to 'legitimately' elect a president?


HAHAHAHAHA

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by anarkisst:
<STRONG> </STRONG>

Why is there a Teletubby posing by the scraped metal?

[chadbattles]

mellinium,
rebuttals...okay
So hearing the crash (explosion) means it MUST have been an airliner.Take a legal investigation class and then tell me how reliable eyewitnesses really are.
1. you have a point blind luck does happen
2. the pentagon (quadragon) is so on top of things that they could clean up an airliner crash so quickly but could not scramble some fighter jets to take care of these problems a whole half an hour after the first plane hit the WTC and the supposed plane that hit the pentagon was actually thought to be heading to the white house? Go figure...those great pentagon guys!

3."We" would be a great number of people that question the official story, look beyond your isolated world...there are quite a few of "US"
5. Yes I am aware of the state department truck bomb reports..this is not what I am referring to.
6.You essentially agreed with this point

The question of the legitamacy of our leaders is an important one. The results of the reports on the florida election case were due to be published on sept. 11, but another matter pushed that story into obscurity

I am not expecting everyone to agree with me on ANYTHING. Mine has been the only post here even giving the credence to the idea of something other than the the official story. As soon as the topic was posted, every single poster seemed to be militantly dismissive of the very notion.
"You are not the pinnacle of intellect or logic"-mellinium
HUH??? I don't recall claiming that I am. I am merely tring to tell you that there are people out there beyond both of us, who are so far ahead of the game that we will never catch up. They are wired differently from everyone else. To ignore this simple truism is to wallow in ignorace.
"there is a sucker born every minute"---PT Barnum

Sorry to use all these big words and make you feel like I am the pinnacle of intellect, I'll dumb it down a little for you in my next post (it'll be more like the news)
Chad

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by The Godfather:
<STRONG>

Why is there a Teletubby posing by the scraped metal?</STRONG>

FUNNEEEEEE!!!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>


hahahaha

right on.</STRONG>

Wow! That one wooshed right past you didn't it?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>
Well. That's a little harsh, isn't it? Especially when theres, well, THOUSANDS of witnesses, and all. Not to mention all those DEAD folks... and the trashed buildings and all. I'm all for throwing out questions... hell, I firmly think it is my duty as an American citizen to question my government... regularly and with intensity. But, you know, it goes a little far calling people closed minded because they consider these notions absurd. There's a fairly INSURMOUNTABLE level of physical proof. There is a certain level of absurdity to be overcome and I do not think an accusation of "closed mindedness" is warranted on this particular matter. It is like calling someone closed minded for not believing you if you told them the sun would rise tomorrow, but this time it was coming up in the likeness of Buddy Cianci. Is there a possibility, well, hell, ANYTHING is possible. But I think we can all agree that there's a certain amount of evidence that would lead us to think the notion is more absurd than anything Artaud could come up wioth, even with the help of Oliver Stone.

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: maxelson ]</STRONG>

Why did you think he was referring to the thread topic?

Read his post in context, Max. He was talking about the congresswoman who suggested Bush & co. knew of the 9/11 beforehand.

Only some french fictional writers are suggesting that the Pentagon was not attacked.

[MacGorilla]

I have a friend who works down the street from the pentagon. Her and her coworkers heard the plane, thought it sounded really low and went outside just in time to see part of the Pentagon blow up. It's both sad and tragic that some people would question events like this.

[jholmes]

For those who question why there is no apparent physical evidence of the plane I would suggest you look to some of the past airline crashes where the planes impacted at extremely high speed. I believe there was an American Airlines crash in rural Arkansas and another crash in Pennsylvania(USAir?). There was virtually no intact debris remaining. The explosions literally destroyed everything larger than a piece of paper.

If the plane hit the Pentagon at the same speeds that they impacted the WTC towers I'd bet there was very little that would survive.

[shanraghan]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
<STRONG>
3."We" would be a great number of people that question the official story, look beyond your isolated world...there are quite a few of "US"
5. Yes I am aware of the state department truck bomb reports..this is not what I am referring to.
6.You essentially agreed with this point.</STRONG>

If that's the case, then we are the ones who question silly little conspiracy theories like this one, as well as the fact that the number after three is five.

[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: shanraghan ]

[zigzag]

chadbattles, healthy skepticism of the official story is one thing, speculating wildly on alternatives is another. I don't doubt that the government knows more than we do (I would certainly hope so), but by far the most plausible explanation of what happened is that an airliner with real people in it unexpectedly crashed into the Pentagon. There is ample evidence to support the official story. There is no evidence, other than in your imagination, to support your suggestion that the whole thing was orchestrated. To paraphrase a famous philosopher: Get real.

I'm reminded of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. If you take a set of selected facts, concoct a few others, and add some speculation, you can concoct all kinds of elaborate theories and sell a lot of books, especially if your audience doesn't know any better (i.e. hasn't actually read the entire Warren Report). It's entertaining but in the end it usually defies common sense. It's funny how the same people who constantly criticize the incompetence of government agencies often have no trouble crediting the same bumbling bureaucrats with flawlessy orchestrating vast conspiracies involving hundreds and even thousands of co-conspirators who all manage to keep silent for years on end even when they have opposing interests.

Again, healthy skepticism = good, baseless speculation = bad.

[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: zigzag ]

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
<STRONG>I personally believe that the government had ample warning and let it happen...

&lt;snip&gt;

We have the most advanced intelligence apparatus on earth, in the history of the world...and there are documented cases of the government being warned of these attacks. You cannot tell me that 100 or even 200 american civilians are not worth the price (in the eyes of Bush) of a strong military/industrial resurgence in this country making us BILLIONS of dollars and securing our future in natural recources while also legitimizing the presidency, and the WTO position. </STRONG>

Typical leftist conspiracy theory... Do you hear that? Black, low flying helicopters... THEY'RE COMING! Maybe the government cancelled the X-Files so people like you would stop finding out about the deception of the U.S. government.

I don't much like Republicans or large corporations or mass-media either, but COME ON! Please, provide evidence instead of just conjecture.

[Package]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
<STRONG>Maxelson, are you trying to tell me there were thousands of people that witnessed the pentagon crash? I think you are dreaming.
1. Funny that the crash happened in the one spot on the pentagon that was least populated.

&lt;snip&gt;</STRONG>

Blah blah blah. This is all fine and dandy, your speculations and questions and finely-honed critical thinking skills, but how about taking a moment to stop and think about how offensive it is to treat this whole thing like some kind of Fox alien autopsy TV special? It might be funny/odd to you that there were conflicting news reports that morning, or that there were a whole mess of eyewitnesses to every tragedy that occured that day. It might be neat for you and your Criminal Investigation 101 classmates to pull your chairs into a circle and impress each other with your conspiracy theories. It's not so neat to hear a plane crash and spend the next few hours hustling through the city streets (or navigating traffic jams in your car, like I was), eyes to the sky, wondering where the next plane or rumored truck bomb or whatever-the-hell-else is gonna hit...wondering if this is indeed the big one. That was the scene in downtown D.C. that day, and if you weren't there you can't understand and should be a little more sensitive and respectful to the people that *did* see a passenger jet swoop down over their car, or past their apartment/office window that morning. Just a thought, in case you were wondering why so many people think you're an ass.

Sh*t...and to think we had it good compared to what was going down in Manhattan that day...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
<STRONG>2. the pentagon (quadragon) is so on top of things that they could clean up an airliner crash so quickly but could not scramble some fighter jets to take care of these problems a whole half an hour after the first plane hit the WTC and the supposed plane that hit the pentagon was actually thought to be heading to the white house? Go figure...those great pentagon guys!</STRONG>

What would fighter jets have done? Shot the planes down?

For that matter, there are theories out there that fighter jets were scrambled. Some even think that this is what really happened to Flight 96.

3."We" would be a great number of people that question the official story, look beyond your isolated world...there are quite a few of "US"

You don't think I questioned the official story? I did. And I gave it a lot of thought, and did a fair amount of research into it. And when I considered everything that I had seen, heard, and found, I decided that the official story was basically reliable.

5. Yes I am aware of the state department truck bomb reports..this is not what I am referring to.

Having actually been in the DC area at the time of the crashes, sufffice it to say I had my ear to the ground on this, and I never heard any kind of report of a truck bomb at the pentagon.

The question of the legitamacy of our leaders is an important one. The results of the reports on the florida election case were due to be published on sept. 11, but another matter pushed that story into obscurity

Actually, I've found several studies on this, including (I think) the one you're talking about. Thus far, they've all agreed; even if the endless hand recounts had gone on, Bush would still have won.

Mine has been the only post here even giving the credence to the idea of something other than the the official story. As soon as the topic was posted, every single poster seemed to be militantly dismissive of the very notion.

Lerkfish will probably feel very insulted when he reads how you appear to have overlooked or ignored his posts.

"You are not the pinnacle of intellect or logic"-mellinium
HUH??? I don't recall claiming that I am.

You did so implicitly, with your claims that anyone who doesn't agree with you is blindly following the official story rather than thinking for themselves.

I am merely tring to tell you that there are people out there beyond both of us, who are so far ahead of the game that we will never catch up. They are wired differently from everyone else. To ignore this simple truism is to wallow in ignorace.

Self-flattery is not very healthy, but neither is self-deprecation. Don't belittle yourself like that. Experts are just people who've done more research; were it not for that, they'd be little different from you or me. They are tools to help you form your own opinions, not crutches to blindly parrot.

"there is a sucker born every minute"---PT Barnum

See, there you go again, with your implication that everyone who doesn't agree with you if just blindly following what they've been told.

Sorry to use all these big words and make you feel like I am the pinnacle of intellect, I'll dumb it down a little for you in my next post (it'll be more like the news)

...says the guy who can't even spell "Millennium".

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
<STRONG>Blackgriffen,
If you actually saw footage of the plane hitting the pentagon and as you say " recall footage seeing the tail of that airplane flying so unnaturally low, just before it smashed in to the Pentagon"...you may be the only person on Earth who saw it...there is no film of the plane hitting the pentagon, just security camera stills (also not containing a plane), that came out two months later and dated 1 day after the crash (security camera time stamp on US army site...will give link if requested).
Chad</STRONG>

You impugn either my honor or my intelligence, you worthless puddle of rat spittle. I never claimed to have seen footage of the impact, what I did see was footage of a plain flying so low through DC that the low buildings of the area were able to obstruct it briefly. Here's an eyewitness account I downloaded from CNN's multimedia archive.

The size of your ego is only outdone by your incredible ability to delude yourself. I was patient when you were only questioning authority and had some wild eyed theories, but I will not tolerate being called a liar or an idiot, even by an obviously incompetent judge of evidence such as yourself.



BlackGriffen

[starman]

Don't feed the troll.

Mike

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by starman:
<STRONG>Don't feed the troll.

Mike</STRONG>

Good point.

Hey, rat-spit, did you ever stop to consider the fact that a Pentagon attack would be completely superfluous? A single plane crashing in to downtown Manhatten would have been enough reason to declare war on just about anyone but Russia, let alone two planes crashing in to the WTC! Not to mention that the Pentagon is a military target, and thus targeting it is semi-justifiable; at least more justifiable than attacking the WTC.

BlackGriffen

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
<STRONG>You impugn either my honor or my intelligence, you worthless puddle of rat spittle.</STRONG>

Hold on; you're going too far. I don't agree with what chad is saying any more than you do, but that's not a license to go that postal on him.

I never claimed to have seen footage of the impact, what I did see was footage of a plain flying so low through DC that the low buildings of the area were able to obstruct it briefly.

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean much. As a DC area native, I can vouch for the fact that this is rather commonplace, due to Reagan National Airport's odd runway design. It calls for a type of landing that pilots call the "slam dunk", because it is quite steep, and in some cases, if you're looking from the right angle, the plane will seem to pass behind buildings.

Did I see footage of the actual crash? No, I did not. Is it somehow my fault that the media wasn't watching the Pentagon at the time of the crash, as they had been (through sheer luck with the first crash, but not the second)? That's perfectly plausible, given the circumstances. Unlike some nations (and contrary to the wishes of John Ashcroft, Larry Ellison, and other assorted cowards), our own isn't watched every second of every day, by cameras covering every inch. I'd be more worried if this were the case.

The size of your ego is only outdone by your incredible ability to delude yourself.

I'm not sure I'd call him deluded. I just don't think he's thought this through enough to realize that his own view is not the only possibility.

He's blindly accusing everyone who trusts the official story of being blind sheep, mindlessly parroting what they've been told. Sure, this is true of some people; I know a few (heck, I'm related to a few, which has led to some interesting family discussions). But to say we're all blind zealots does nothing more than betray his own zealotry. He has an opinion (whether or not it's his own, or just that of some pundit, I'm not certain), but he hasn't yet matured to the point where he realizes that it's just that: an opinion, and it can never be anything else until it has been definitively proven. But the same goes for the opposite side, for those who choose to believe the official story; don't forget that, either. Without proof positive, there is no fact; only theory. But a lack of proof negative doesn't equal proof positive (this is the classic mistake made by presumption-of-guilt types).

I was patient when you were only questioning authority and had some wild eyed theories, but I will not tolerate being called a liar or an idiot, even by an obviously incompetent judge of evidence such as yourself.

I suppose you do have a point there. But there's not much need to get as insulting as you're being. Sure, some insults are going to be traded back and forth; it's only natural in a discussion such as this. But there's no need to make this degenerate into a true flamewar.

[Face Ache]

But it was almost worth it for "puddle of rat spittle".

That's pretty good you have to admit.

[edit: no offence chad]

[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: Face Ache ]

[chadbattles]

board,
Okay, so I am now rat spittle...very creative. As for the X files references, I have never even seen the show so all that is lost on me. I have offered no alternative theories here, I am simply amazes at how reactionary some people are in dismissing conflicting ideologies, By the way, I have never been a good speller and you gotta admit that telling someone that their point of view is invalid due to their spelling is a pretty baseless argument....look at your family physician, mine could not spell her way out of a paper bag, but her diognosis' are usually accurate. I do have to give millenium some credit here for at least being able to keep this discussion rational. A great American once said that " I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it"
Five comes after three when you are rubutting points from a person who left out number 4. Read the whole thread man.
Package, if you want to live your life eye-to-the-sky, expecting terrorist attacks...it's your life, live in fear. Do you think I am wondering why "people are on my ass"? I would not have posted my comments in the first place if I worried about what people thought of me.
You can call me a troll all you want....but it is only because I have doubts that I am willing to voice, message boards are notorious for trollizing people who don't conform to general opinion. Why did the original poster even bring this up if he did not expect some spirited discussion.
My most humble apologies lerkfish.

I never said my views are the only ones...just that I am suprised that there is has been next to no one who will consider even for a moment that there are other possibilities out there.
You know what? I know where you stand, and you know where I stand.....my stance contains doubt, that is all....doubt. But since this doubt offends pretty much everyone here I will step out of this discussion and just let you all agree with each other.
Keep up the good work.
Yours trolly
Chad

PS blackgriffen, watch the CNN opinion polls...todays polls are tommorrow's news stories. CNN is about as reliable a news source as the Office of Strategic Influence.

[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: chadbattles ]

[dgs212]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[QB]
Unlike some nations (and contrary to the wishes of John Ashcroft, Larry Ellison, and other assorted cowards), our own isn't watched every second of every day, by cameras covering every inch. I'd be more worried if this were the case.


QB]

You're delusional

[chadbattles]

One more thing...it is wide eyed, not wild eyed, blackgriffen
The originality of the rat spittle comment is so good I am going to now change me user name to ratspittle...thx

[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: chadbattles ]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by jholmes:
<STRONG>But I am somewhat suspicious of any country that can't make decent beer. Every hear of French beer? Makes you wonder doesn't it.</STRONG>

One big reason why Germany is suspicious of the US: *some* Americans actually believe that their beer is even half-way decent (not talking about backyard breweries, just the mainstream swill).

Though I prefer wine, anyway, and California makes a couple pretty good drops. But then, France makes a *whole lot* of great wines. And cheese.

And the originator of this particular book being French is really just coincidental. Most of the really bizarre internet conspiracy theories come from your continent - witness Art Bell's show for a sampling of those.

-s*

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
<STRONG>One more thing...it is wide eyed, not wild eyed, blackgriffen
The originality of the rat spittle comment is so good I am going to now change me user name to ratspittle...thx

[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: chadbattles ]</STRONG>

From www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: wild-eyed

Pronunciation: 'wI(&)ld-'Id
Function: adjective
Date: 1817
1 : having a wild expression in the eyes
2 : consisting of or favoring extreme or visionary ideas &lt;wild-eyed schemes&gt;

Keep trying . Sorry I blew up, normally I'm pretty level headed (just check out the abortion thread). I just don't take too well to being called a liar, idiot, or insane (read your first post addressed to me, one or more of those was the implication of what you said). Millennium explained quite nicely why I saw what I saw and yet it wasn't really evidence of anything. (we need a shrug emoticon...)

If you really think it's that original, go for it!

BlackGriffen

[Ratspittle]

Thanks for the great new name. see ya 'round.

[ReggieX]

The truth will out

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by anarkisst:
<STRONG>

Whenever something unbelievable happens (Pearl Harbor, JFK, Apollo 11, UFOs et al) the conspiracy freaks come out of the woodwork.
</STRONG>

Actually im 99% convinced that JFK was a conspiracy/coverup.

[G Barnett]

Originally posted by gumby5647:
<STRONG>


Actually im 99% convinced that JFK was a conspiracy/coverup.</STRONG>

Of course it was. However, none of the current theories are correct. What REALLY happened is that Kennedy was so depressed over the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and the upcoming insanity in Vietnam that he hired some ex-CIA friends to kill him so he would at least go out looking like a hero. Oswald, rather than being a patsy, was actually trying to kill JFK on his own and independent of the whole suicide plot. He did at least turn out to be a convenient scapegoat in the ensuing chaos.


G Barnett

(hehe, the things you can come up with off the top of your head, eh?)

[Colonel Panic]

That did it. The French are officially in the "axis of evil". How do you like them apples, Frenchies? (OK, old SNL skit...)

[zigzag]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
<STRONG>I have offered no alternative theories here, I am simply amazes at how reactionary some people are in dismissing conflicting ideologies . . . Five comes after three when you are rubutting points from a person who left out number 4. Read the whole thread man . . . I never said my views are the only ones...just that I am suprised that there is has been next to no one who will consider even for a moment that there are other possibilities out there . . . You know what? I know where you stand, and you know where I stand.....my stance contains doubt, that is all....doubt. But since this doubt offends pretty much everyone here I will step out of this discussion and just let you all agree with each other.</STRONG>

chadbattles, you posited a number fairly specific assertions and theories (e.g. there were no airplane parts; the government might have orchestrated this in order to create support for a military action, etc.). Now you're saying that you did no such thing. And you wonder why no one is taking you seriously.

I don't believe a single one of us ever said "I accept the official version simply because it is the official version; I never doubt anything the government says." As far as I can tell, the people who you characterize as "reactionary sheep" have only been interested in discussing the actual evidence (whether it is the official version or not), as opposed to merely speculating, as you did. You're the one who is saying that 5 comes after 3. This offended someone who was actually at the scene, and I don't blame them for being offended. Instead of saying "Well, OK, I may have been talking out of my ass a little bit", you persist in characterizing yourself as the smart skeptic and the rest of us "reactionary sheep." It's bull****.

It's as if you had said "I don't trust the government and have reason to doubt that we ever actually landed on the moon," and upon being asked "What's your evidence?", you responded by saying "I never suggested that we didn't actually land on the moon, I'm just open to other possibilities, and anyone who asks me for actual evidence is a reactionary sheep!"

Look, we all know that the government lies, cheats and steals, and if someone were to offer a rational alternative explanation for what happened on 9/11, with actual evidence, I'm quite sure that we would be open to it. But if you're going to question the basic nature of what happened on 9/11 and even suggest that it was orchestrated by the government, you had better be prepared to back it up with some facts. Characterizing those who accept the basic fact that a plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon as "sheep" doesn't cut it.

Again, healthy skepticism = good; baseless speculation = bad.

[scottiB]

ReggieX,

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ReggieX:
<STRONG>The truth will out
</STRONG>

Well, someone here's been reading too much Fark...

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by gumby5647:
<STRONG>


Actually im 99% convinced that JFK was a conspiracy/coverup.</STRONG>

That's because it was.

[ReggieX]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>Well, someone here's been reading too much Fark...</STRONG>

I don't think I ever have.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by chadbattles:
[QB
6. don't tell me that the government is without reproach...
Chad[/QB]

...and I even remotely implied that...when? Please reread my post.
Don't bother, I'll boil it down.
I question my government. Often.
I do believe my government has done some OBSCENE things.
Faking a jetliner crash into the Pentagon was not one of them.
The notion that the crash was faked is patently absurd.
I accept the notion that there may be truth to some claims about cover ups and clandestine ops. I hold that in order for this to have some foothold, there must be SOME plausability. This is not one of those times.
Your post is reaching for things that are not there- meaning, you are searching for hidden meanings and making assumptions that you have no reason for.
You insulting me for not acception this theory is insulting in and of itself. It implies that I have no brain and cannot think critically. Well, contrary to your evident opinion, I am thinking critically about this case. The notion that this was faked is so far into the realm of absurdity, it is difficult to even grasp the notion.
There. I hope I have cleared up any confusion I may have caused.