You rock, Geoff...very well put.
I think I have a "man crush" on you now.
It's very understandable. I am a heartthrob to one and all.
Yes, I have been considering making an exit.. however, I keep on thinking on all the consequences of the events on 9/11 and find myself back here, looking for new ways to persuade you guys that the official story is wrong...
Well, I disagree partially with your tack. You're taking the perspective that we represent an audience to be "converted". But the issue to me is more "what is the likeliest explanation?" This is an undirected search for truth; I do appreciate that all people start with some kind of inherent bias, of course.
As in, the politicians don't want us to know certain facts?
This is possible, certainly. Some of the facts it may behoove us to know. Some, it may not. But to infer that the government is covering something up is a bit - if I may borrow a favoured phrase of Tiassa, then wash my hands with a frantic fervour until they bleed, then burn my ears off - "sensationalistic". We don't know what they know, or don't know, or even if they know anything. I think it's a not uncommon trap to assume that the "powers that be" know
everything. Yet, such people are also, like you and I, human, with the odd secret Lizardoid-in-the-Karl-Rove-Mask thrown in for salt. They make mistakes, grand and small. Their country's economy just went into the tank while they blinked and watched like goldfish - (and, on that subject, thank you, George W, for implying that the nation would erupt in fire if the bail-out wasn't approved;
brilliantly inspiring choice of words; do you not have a
speechwriter, sir? Was he absent, sick, driven insane, unconscious from a blow to the head?) - unable to puzzle out the immediate and unavoidable consequences of herd mentality.
As you know, I completely disagree with the idea that the evidence is 'spotty'. However, it appears that you seem to be saying that some of the evidence sounds credible; is that what you're saying?
Well, not exactly, no. Scott, I don't mean to portray everything you're saying as utter drivel spun together by a the like of a mad gnome with a spinning wheel turning straw into Pentagon missiles. (Just a joke.) I mean to say that some of what you say looks suspicious or seems credible
prima facie. Yet a calmer and more rational approach to the same data results in a more reasoned, less sensationalist (
ach, my mind) answer.
They fell at close to free fall speed. That's a fact.
I regret to say that "close to" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades and the level of permissible inbreeding in Atlanta. The parts of the building falling off of it
do achieve, by sheer definition, free fall speed; and even they are subject to air resistance of
some kind. The building does
not fall at free fall speed, as can be seen. So, I cannot agree that this is a fact; it is
not a fact, unless fact can be defined by repetition.
I believe the evidence solidly backs this claim.
And, again, it does
not. You have not explained the testimony of others. You have not explained the damage to the Pentagon. You have not described what sort of missile in the possession of the Pentagon could possibly be so massive.
I've seen this argument. However, I admit that at present, I don't understand the maths used.
Then I will rely on my eyes; a plane could handily make such a pull-out.
The term 'rhetoric' can mean many things.
I refer here not to the pejorative, but to the original Platonic meaning of persuasion. I apologise for any insult you may have taken.
I have produced a lot of evidence showing that the temperatures that would have been produced from plane crashes in the WTC buildings would be nowhere near the temperatures required to melt or even significantly warp the steel columns.
Again: my regrets, but this is simply
not so. You posted a link from a 9/11 site with a
very conservative estimate of the temperature required for a loss of 50% of steel strength,
which the fire in the Towers exceeded by at least 50F. This was your own posting. Is there much that can be said beyond this?
You suggest that their maths are no good. I don't yet understand their maths, however, so I have not come to this conclusion. Since many other things they have said seem to have solid evidence, I am assuming that their maths are good.
Assumption, for several reasons, is the fertilizer of folly.
I have already posted information stating that many of the alleged terrorists are still alive today.
Yes; and I have already posted information stating that this is based on misidentification and similarity of names. The BBC
themselves retracted this story.
Yet there are far more that contradict their version of events.
I definitely disagree with that assessment and have felt that the official story believers are the ones who have glossed over many things.
Then here we again diverge. I cannot agree with your assessment. Whatever the official story may lack, if anything, in explanation is the result of accident, not intent. In short, there is no conspiracy of the kind you describe. In the pictures, for example, from the CIT site, I note that the damage to the Pentagon is more pronounced to the left of what appears to be the impact point. Is it not more reasonable to expect that the fire spread in this direction because it was carried into this section by the direction of the impact? Only one of their witnesses reported seeing the plane fly away after the explosion. 26 report otherwise.
Now, will you do me the honour of examining SLC in more detail? Watch it through, right to the end, and report back your evaluation thereof. I consider it no shame to reverse a position; rather, it is the sign of a mature and responsible mind, and moreso than mine, as I am now going to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein and eat Cheetos.
Geoff