Marlon Brando In Dallas
July 23, 2009
Truebeleaguer, one of the posters at Truth Action I have quite a bit of time for, has responded to me on the forum. Sadly I was inexplicably banned from the forum the day before so will respond here.
The basic premise of his post is that, OK, the witnesses do prove a north of Citgo approach, but it’s illogical to say that this demonstrates that the plane did not hit the building.
Look at the issue this way: Suppose Marlon Brando claims he was in Los Angeles on November 22, 1963. Suppose I have 13 witnesses placing him in Dallas that morning. Can I claim that lying about his whereabouts proves he was involved in the Kennedy assassination? No! Perhaps the issue merits further investigation, but it’s premature to accuse Brando of killing JFK.
I appreciate the imagination and use of metaphor, but it does not fit these circumstances. The killing of JFK is a completely different topic to Brando’s position, whereas the position of the plane is fundamentally linked with whether or not it caused the damage to the light poles and building, which can only be caused by a plane on the official flight path.
A more fitting metaphor to describe true’s position would be this:
A person was run over in a hit and run in Los Angeles and Marlon Brando was accused of the crime. However 13 witnesses place him in Dallas at the time and none can be found to contradict them. OK, this does show he was not in LA, but it is illogical to say this means he still didn’t run over that person there.
Just as it would be impossible for Marlon Brando to be in Dallas and to have run someone over in LA at the same time, it is impossible for the plane to be on the north of Citgo and to have hit the light poles on the south of it, or to have cause the “punch out” hole which lines up perfectly with a straight line from the first light pole to the last.
As though this had not been made clear enough I will reiterate: There is 0% margin for error with the official south of Citgo flight path. If the plane came in on anything but the exact straight line between the first light pole and the “punch out” hole it could not have caused the damage.
Could, as true has suggested before, the damage have been faked and the plane still hit? Well then where is the damage from a plane coming in from the north side of the station, and why on earth would they take these risks and go to this trouble anyway. This question is clearly one borne of cognitive dissonance, a mind which does not want to believe something at any costs will do some impressively limber acrobatics to avoid having to. The suggestion that the damage was faked AND the plane hit the Pentagon is a text book example of this.
Had I not been banned from the forum true may well have come around to realising this. As it is, now all posters who are not anti-CIT have been purged, the absurdity of this notion will not be challenged and he will continue to walk around with a completely illogical position on this subject in his mind.