metakron said:
I simply don't believe the phrase "easily debunked" when you use it that way, Iceaura.
Do you think the claim that the towers "fell at free fall speed", plus puddles of melted steel, plus side explosions during the collapse, prove it was the product of controlled demolition,
and the claim that the size of the hole, plus the missing video, plus a lack of debris, prove the Pentagon was hit by a missile,
and so forth
are not easily debunked ?
All anyone has to do, if those speculations actually grow to threaten anyone in the US administration, is put a stopwatch on the video of the collapse, have a physicist demonstrate on TV the kinds of temperatures generated by such an event, and take sworn testimony from an experienced demolition expert about what would be necessary in rigging the buildings to fall as they did when they did. Or fit a silhouette of the Pentagon plane into the hole and point to the wing scars on either side, while pointing to the photos of plane debris outside the building, and possibly even releasing the good video if they have any.
That's if those speculations do somehow begin to threaten anyone who might be threatened by public explication.
Meanwhile, they have been serving a valuable role for the people dubiously involved in 9/11 - the actual evidence of complicity and odd dealings goes unpublicized, buried in a compost heap of Hollywood inspired drama.
Maybe a good analogy might be the bullfighter's cape - except that would imply deliberate agency, which is possible but not necessary.