Guardian said:
Pashalis said:
She has not "discounted any data" in the interview
Yes she did, when she said the thermal image data was faked. She discounted the witness testimony too, and the records of the tons of steel that was hauled away. She also said that she is the ONLY person with the correct theory about what happened to the buildings.
Point 1: She hasn't said nore has she implied that the thermal image data was faked neither in the SOTT interview nor in her book. Point 2: She didn't discounted any witness testimony in the SOTT interview and in the book either. Point 3: And she didn't discounted tons of steel that was hauled away neither in the SOTT interview nor in the book (In this case she is simply stating that this "tons of steel that was hauled away to China" is a rumor and simply that, with no objective data that would proof that). And point 4: Seems actually true if we talk about what happened physically in New York on 9 11.
What did she actually say about those points in the SOTT interview:
(http://www.sott.net/article/261575-SOTT-Talk-Radio-No-Ordinary-Inside-Job-The-9-11-Psy-Ops)
Point 1: She is actually not saying anything like you are accusing her of doing and nore does she in the book.
Point 2: She is not discounting any witness testimony in the whole interview as well as in the book. What she is saying is that a witness testimony has to be looked at carefully because people easily assume things that might not be the way they think they are.
Point 3: At 00:46:53 she is saying "As well as just making assumptions like steel boots melted [Impling that it was heat that caused this] or all steel shipped to china..."
Point 4: At 00:19:50 - 00:20:07 she is saying "It might sound a bit odd and self-serving, but it is not. My book is the only determination of what happened, that is out there in the puplic domain..." And if we assume that she is refering to what happened physically in New York on 9 11 then she is most likely right about that (And I think we can savely assume that she is refering to exactly that and nothing else). Or pretty close.
And I've not come across any interview, presentation or thing on her website that would suggest anything of those first three points you are accusing her of doing in the above either. And the 4 point seems to be true. Or closer then any other work I have come across. And by the way she is adressing all three of those points in great detail in the book.
Can you please point out where she said anything like what you are accusing her of doing in those first three points above?
So how exactly have you come to those conclusions? Where did she say or wrote about that?
Can you see, that you might imagine things into her words and research that aren't there, because you don't understand the material wich is explained in great detail in her book?
Again if you actually would read the book and build a actual foundation of understanding of what she and we are talking about, some things might finally make sense to you.
And by the way, every single picture and data in the book has a reference to it. That means you can actually look any photo or data she is covering in the book up for yourself. That speaks against, that she photoshopped ore faked anything in there FWIW. And when she is saying, demonstrating or calculating something in the book she is actually explaining in great detail how she has come to any given explanation. She made it pretty easy, so that anyone can follow her and research and calculate those thing for yourself.
Can you point out to us if you found anything she photoshopped?
