Can't quite understand what you are saying here, as far as I'm aware no one has yet appeared in the MSM to talk no one died on 9/11.I appreciate your caution, but the fact that no family has done so, should tell us they are concerned about the kind of scrutiny that would be paid to such people.
That is provided the survivors of 9/11 victims are aware that there are people who doubt the victim ever existed.You can read this a number of ways. On the one hand, if those claiming to be "survivors" of a "9/11 victim" are telling the truth, they would be annoyed with the amount of doubters and so forth; however, their lack of interest in how their dead family member was being exploited by the military to effect world affairs could only be excused as something related to apathy toward other people and how they are treated by the military establishment — rather counterintuitive to the story that the victims are all these supposedly gregarious extra-social lovable saints. I don't suppose it's fear if they think the military offed their son, or they would be absolutely livid about the football interview with that patriarch of the Eaton clan?
I now believe that close (immediate family) survivors of most of the real people who disappeared on 9/11 are aware of the ruse.
If Eaton was offed the only reason I can think, is his seniority within espeed, demostrating a reluctance to go along with the scam.
There are a few victims who I think were real people, some you already mentioned in your opening post in the other thread.Would you point out any vicsim identities who you suspect (as you suspect Eaton to be) may have been created from real people — and particularly are not being propped up primarily by weird memorials made by people who claim to vaguely remember him (except that he existed and matches the singular shallow facet they knew him as) and who together are part of a pre-existing social group that is already kind of clubby/gang-like, and who made a bunch of money from his death, whether it's supposedly for a charity or not?
I think most memorials can look a bit weird. When people die tragically, people who barely know the victim come out of the wood work to feed off the catharsis.
The pre- existing social group regarding Eaton was a group he was part of on an internet forum.I don't think he would have met any of them in person.
I wouldn't say this group were propping him up as a kind of back stopping. He was posting under an odd witty user name, inspired by an ex player from the club who would have been playing when he first started to attend games with his father.
I can't see any comparison, the Bingham story falls apart just by the phone call itself.can you reasonably assure us this does not compare in some way to the backstopping of Mark "It's me mom! Mark Bingham!" Bingham? Or other ridiculous cases where some person or team put some thought into what is still a clearly bogus story?
As opposed to the Barbra Olson phone call where by Ted Olson indicts himself.
I haven't factored in any of the above. It's the St. Pauls Cathedral School stuff, which dovetails into later info that makes me believe he's a real person.Is it a hint that he's alive when nobody left a single comment on that terribly photoshopped picture of "Robert Eaton" on CNN? Or was the family perhaps offended at the way the media asked the families for pictures and then went ahead and used the terrible "picture" that the family of Eaton provided? This all makes sense to you as part of a grand puzzle of hidden death of some kind? Or you consider these awful embarrassing things "cover up" I suppose?
I wouldn't have a clue who formulated the New York Times article posted on legacy. Looks as though it's just been cobbled together.
That's a knew thought for me. A cryptic message within the tribute.Maybe, though, if you're right, we are meant to read into the text about him always being willing to go "along with a joke" and assume the entire strange fictionalization of his life was some volunteer bit to allow the Vicsim some absorption of an identity he was abandoning
I'll revise that to 30% & 70%.You say 40% possibility of his being killed and 60% possibility of faking his death, but what is your nominal feeling about a complete fake invented by a connected group with an elected "family member" representative?
For a complete fake to be invented by a connected group with an elected "family member" representative, would mean that Mr & Mrs Eaton & their 3 daughters, have to pretend to have a son/ brother they never had.
You'd have to measure the lengths that people would need to go to, against any easier options.