Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Ah, yes, but Lebell you did the typical response to this idea: you simply dismissed what was said without question. You can't preach about this being blatently foolish if you have nothing to support it. You seem to be intelligent, does it make sense to you that someone is arguing that an idea is foolish, despite not doing much if any research of his or her own? Of course not. What Boatin and I are saying to you is that you are your own worst enemy if you want people to pay attention to your post. Your quick dismissal leads people to believe that you have just read a few posts and ayou think you know better. Well, I don't think that you know so much more than some of these people. I, myself, have been investigating this problem for weeks. I have contacted several people who are qualified to answer some of the questions this thread and the other bring up. Aeronautical engineers, reporters, firefighters who have been involved with multiple plane crashes. I included all of this information in a letter to my congressman. All it seems that you have done, based on your response, is formed a quick opinnion. What if you're wrong? Let's just try to imagine that this improbable story is actuially the truth. Would you be willing to admit that ther is even a possibility? I hope so, otherwise you are being led blindly.
|
There have been many times in my life where I was wrong and there will undoubtably be many more, but honestly, I cannot see any reason to doubt the fact that a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11, unless you are operating under preconceptions born from a dislike of the Bush Administration/American government.
I say that not as an inflamatory statement, but as an historical observation.
Consider conspiracy theories in general.
The Knights Templar, the Holocaust, the Moon Landing, Roswell, Kennedy's Assassination....most all are put forth and perpetuated by people with a beef with the organizations involved. In this case, there is a French conspiracy author that makes outlandish charges that are finding their way into the mainstream by the usual method...they are quoted enough until the origin of the quotes are clouded and unquestioned. Now, instead of us questioning the author and requiring him to prove his charges, we are requiring the US govt. to *prove* that the Pentagon crash happened inspite of:
- 3 other coordinated plane attacks (two successful)
- hijackers of known origin
- muliple eyewitness accounts
Further, this theory requires us to believe that the government either a) made up this fantastic "plan" on the cuff and carried it out immediately after the WTC was hit or
worse, they had advanced knowledge of the WTC attack and
then made their evil plan
and managed to keep it secret
inspite of the couple of hundred people that it would require to pull off.
Is it any wonder that this reminds me of that Nazi nut who, since his test didn't reveal the levels of cyanide in the walls of what was left of the showers of Auswitch, claimed that there were no gas chambers? Or those that say because some people heard a double report that there must have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll? Etc...
As to the "experts", there are also "expert scientists" that doubt evolution and push intelligent design as well as "experts" that support all the other nutty conspiracy theories. So no, these "experts" don't impress me either, not when I can produce a hundred that agree with the standard explanation.
So while I can "imagine" that this story might be true, I have yet to be shown any
real reason to believe it, while I
have been shown many reasons to heap the scorn on it that I have shown.
(edited for grammar/spelling)