No, I don't know the answers to first three questions. I found it on that 9/11 forum I frequent. As to the damage I would expect to see - I would expect to see a lot more trees burnt up considering all of the jet fuel. Like I said though, it looks odd to me. I do wonder how the fire department extinguished that fire so quickly though.
Who ever said the plane was buried 30 feet (or any depth) under? That's a big straw man you're propping up, there.
No they didn't. You've been asked to provide a source for this claim. Can't find one? Guess what ... the FBI never said that. Part of it was buried, yes. That's a far cry from what you are claiming.
David Ray is a Godsend. Jim is not afraid to throw out scenarios he considers valid (God knows the OCT certainly isn't). Shills? Nope. Honesty, integrity surround DRG. Jim has the perseverance to keep forcing the issues. Both speak from their hearts, and I think that's a good think.
So why can't you defend their lies? You claim they don't lie. You asked for an example. You tried to lie about what they said and then you just flat out ran away. Maybe Godsend means something different to you, but DRG is most certainly not doing God's work, is he. Nope. One doesn't have to lie to do God's work.
You mean like "dustification" and "video fakery"? You yourself admitted you don't believe the video fakery claim yet you call his scenarios valid?
Geez...I'm not sure.. I am sure that if you keep the propeller underwater and in the mud and at full throttle, enough murky water can be maintained as to obscure any attempt at clearing up the muddy water. (you don't see any mud though I forgot....perfectly clear visibility on everything).
Since DRG is brought up as an honest source and a "Godsend", it is appropriate for everyone to read what DRG said and the defense RWAF had to cobble together to try and defend DRG from his own words. This post is in response to RWAF demanding to know a single lie DRG has said. And of course, RWAF sticking by his lies because they are easier to defend than DRG's lies. So I leave it to the readers to decide who is speaking the truth, who is covering who's butt and who is lying their butt off.
You do realize the only real conclusion one can come to is that DRG is lying his butt off and you're covering for him, right?
It's actually pretty clear: 1) You yourself admitted you don't believe the video fakery claim. 2) DRG embraces and publishes scenarios trumpeting video fakery. 3) You call DRG's scenarios valid. Do you see the contradiction here? On the one hand you dismiss his claims and on the other you call them valid. Which is the truth?
No...I come to a much different conclusion. I look at much more than individual sound bytes and short sighted accusations. Plus....I'm objective. (makes for a good basis of forming an honest assessment of who's lying about what).
I see the contradiction as being someone who tries to find the truth, versus someone who trumpets obvious BS as their basis for accusing others of lying. In other words, DRG makes an honest attempt at LOOKING for the truth, and I applaud him for it. I'll leave the paid assassins of the truth to propagate their own BS. In my opinion, the truth is a lot closer to what DRG advocates than those that advocate the "official" BS that is so easy to verify is false.
I assume that DRG is telling the truth about air phones not being on AA 77, when it's been pointed out numerous times that he's wrong. In fact, it's been pointed out to him by fellow truthers. Anyway.
He HAS corrected that position some time ago. You want to start a SPECIFIC thread on it, I'll be happy to respond to it. Please try to stay on topic.