
I'm speaking just from a discourse analysis perspective...
and I suspect if you looked carefully at the language Gage uses, he says things more like "The speed of the collapse is not compatible with what we know about any kind of destruction other than explosive demolition" rather than "CD is an indisputable fact." We all agree that it is, and at this site most of us agree that there is no way a big jet hit the Pentagon based on what was left behind. For that matter, we also agree that CIT has good evidence contradicting the official flightplan. But apart from the one eyewitness, flyover is an inference. People rightfully balk at CIT's heavy-handed insistence that this inference is anything other than an inference.
WTCD User Comments
10 years 15 weeks ago
10 years 29 weeks ago
10 years 44 weeks ago
11 years 16 weeks ago
11 years 17 weeks ago
11 years 19 weeks ago
11 years 26 weeks ago
11 years 26 weeks ago
11 years 26 weeks ago
11 years 26 weeks ago