Posted on 04/27/2002 9:37:19 AM PDT by TheLurkerX
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
And you got this article how?
Although it may have been appropriate, they were NOT said and you are repeating a second hand fabrication. Smith was being deliberately deceptive and is therefore a tainted source.
Not at all. He was quite open and cited his source. That's the mark of a writer with integrity. Why won't you answer direct questions? I have asked you where the link is for the testimony you are quoting. No answer. I have asked you how you got the text of the NYT article that is cited in Smith's article. No answer.
Here are the 2 instances the article(in italics) where he mentions "troops" and "helicopters"
Within 30 minutes of the torpedo attack, two helicopters carrying armed troops appeared alongside, and two jet fighters loitered in the sky astern as if poised for strikes. As suddenly as it had started, everything stopped."
What's with his "as if" - speculation not evidence.
Within four minutes of this exchange, two French-built Sud 321 Super-Frelon troop-carrying helicopters appeared alongside the LIBERTY, straddling the ship to port and starboard, one forward and the other aft. And two jet fighters were seen loitering astern of the ship, as if on call for a second strike. The helicopters hovered as if they did not know what to do next--as if they had missed their cue. They were not there for rescue service; they were carrying armed troops. Neither machine attempted to signal the LIBERTY. And as ominously as they has appeared, they mysteriously departed." How does he know they "were not there for rescue" amd "were carrying armed troops" - this is Smiths fertile imagination not evidence
The record states "1508 SECOND HELICOPTER APPROACHED SHIP. MARKINGS 0N HELICOPTERS ARE 04 AND 08 OR D4 AND D8 HELICOPTER MADE REPEATED PASSES AROUND AND OVER SHIP. THEY WERE NOT OBSERVED TO PICK UP ANY BODIES, PERSONS OR DEBRIS.
Why would the helo make repeated passes around the ship if it was not on a search. If it was there to land mythical armed troops surely it would stand off out of gun range until it went in fast to land the mythical troops for which you have not postulated a mission objective.
But he knew his source was a fabrication but he presented it as a fact - that's not integrity that deceit.
Why won't you answer direct questions? I have asked you where the link is for the testimony you are quoting. No answer. I have asked you how you got the text of the NYT article that is cited in Smith's article. No answer.
I've told you why - because I asked you for a link and you told me to use Google and look it up for myself. Well, what's Google for the Goose is.....". Anyone following this thread is welcome to Freepmail me for links to sources and Demi when you oblige me with the link you owe me I will tell you.
I have posed many questions to you but you skip most of them and the ones you attempt to answer you do so with just hypotheticals plucked out of thin air, never any credible sources.
What was it searching for? Why don't you answer my questions? Where did you find the text of the NYT article referenced in Smith's article? Where are you getting the text of the Naval inquiry?
If it was there to land mythical armed troops surely it would stand off out of gun range until it went in fast to land the mythical troops for which you have not postulated a mission objective.
There was only one working gun at the end of the attack. The gun that had been firing at the PT boats was cooking off rounds due to the heat from the fire (it is surmised) and was unmanned according to Ennes.
The mission objective of the troops was to make sure that all of the communications equipment and any recordings were destroyed. And possibly to plant charges and sink the ship.
The overall mission was to make sure that news of the attack on Syria was suppressed for the longest possible time.
He let the reader decide and sourced his statement. If he was being deceitful he wouldn't have done that. Sorry, no sale.
I've told you why - because I asked you for a link and you told me to use Google and look it up for myself. Well, what's Google for the Goose is.....".
How convenient. I've already told you that the link exists in this thread. I also have already posted a link to the graphic showing the estimated trajectories and provided a link to that as well. What you're asking me to do is to repeat myself and provide something I explained I have already provided. I also stated that you could, barring a look-see up the thread, perform a google search and perhaps find it just as fast. If that doesn't satisfy you then perhaps you are simply refusing to accept information I've already provided.
Anyone following this thread is welcome to Freepmail me for links to sources and Demi when you oblige me with the link you owe me I will tell you.
See above. I already provided my sources. If you don't accept that, perhaps you are protesting for the sake of protesting.
I have posed many questions to you but you skip most of them and the ones you attempt to answer you do so with just hypotheticals plucked out of thin air, never any credible sources.
Tiresome. You've ignored many of my questions as well.
Rotfl. The level of your sources is Hoffman-info, it seems. Do feel free to raise the flag when you have more holocoust-denial sites you wish to paste from. I'm sure you have an impressive selection :)).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.