You are trying to engage in a debate, not conversation. "Debates" leave plenty of room for manipulative arguments, paramoralisms, non sequiturs, etc. Think hard about this one. It may be difficult, but try anyways:Project9 said:
Situation: Meyssan is presented with photos of a Global Hawk-sized plane hitting the Pentagon. If this event occured, this seems to be all that we can possibly know about it. Now, to come to a conclusion as to whether this is plausible to believe or not, a lot of angles need to be considered: how has the Pentagon dealt with the issue since 911? What 'evidence' has been released? From examining related issues (Zionist blackmail, for one), certain connections start making sense. Why does the US appear to be a slave to Israeli foreign policy? Why hasn't the government released any proof of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (proof that would have had to have been faked)?
Looking at these issues and more, it makes sense that Israel hijacked 77, flew a drone-craft into the Pentagon, or even just made sure that photo evidence of this existed (Mossad, with their agents 'following' "Al Qaeda" would have had top intel on all the specificities). Israel and the Mossad, in their own words, have no 'friends.' Everyone is considered an enemy. Steps are taken to ensure they remain at the top of the food-chain.
Now, for all we know, it was Meyssan who called the photos 'satellite' photos. If they really exist (and you only need one satellite for photos that 3 countries possess...), for all we know, the time of the crash was timed to coincide with a satellite pass. Or, an Aurora-type craft was used, and passed off as "satellite" photos.
So it is possible. You, however, do not seem to be interested in this possibility. You are more interested in trying to say that it doesn't make sense through faulty reasoning. Sorry, but it does make sense. If anything, it did not happen and is a plausible lie. Even then, your reasoning is useless.
It is a probability, and it seems that the photos' existence is more probable than them being a 'plausible lie'.
