Reply #85: Did you notice the irony/hypocrisy of him mentioning "eye witness testimony" twice in one paragraph? [View All]

These are the same guys who ran around hollering "physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony" every chance they got, and they're break their necks jumping up to tell tell you how unreliable eyewitness testimony is and how traumatized the witness was by events and that they are "mistaken" when it's something they don't want to hear. When they cite the witnesses near the Pentagon, they fail to realize that many of those witnesses *could* have been influenced by news reports over their car radios. They hear something like "AA77 hijacked, traveling towards D.C." on the radio, then something big blows past them at 500MPH and they think "hey, I just saw flight 77!".

You're throwing spears at airplanes, dude. You're trying to convince someone of something... and their purpose here is to try to convince *you* of something else. You are NEVER going to convince them. Period. Once you realize and accept this fact you'll find it easier to ignore the nuisance/distraction brigade and engage the ones here who are truly interested in "debate". I'll give some props to AZCat and jberryhill for this.... and Flatulo... he was a good one. I haven't seen him posting in this forum for a while, but saw he made a post in General Discussion the other day. Flatulo!?!? Where are you, dude?


Peace,

Ghost