Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
That's an interesting opinion. Just a few points:
1. Is it not reasonable to assume that the fates of WTC North and South are intertwined with the fate of WTC7? Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that if there was foul play with one, there was foul play with the other? It would be the largest coincedence in history if one was an unexpected terorist attack, and the other was a controlled demolition on the same day. I realize this particular thread is about WTC7, but WTC7 has so many connections to the twin towers they shouyld not be omitted from the conversation.
|
Ah, but you are still assuming it was a controlled demolition. I question that assumption, so I doubly question your conclusion
Regardless of whether or nor the twin towers were taken down as part of a conspiracy, I still believe that WTC7 came down due to damage and fire resulting from the attacks on and collapse of the twin towers.
Do you see the distinction here? Let me show you:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Is it not reasonable to assume that the fates of WTC North and South are intertwined with the fate of WTC7? Therefore isn't it reasonable to assume that if there was foul play with one, there was foul play with the other?
|
Replace "WTC7" with "nearby fire engines." Were fire engines destroyed as part of a conspiracy? No, a building fell on them. Ditto for WTC7.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
2. My relative expertise (I say relative because I am comparing myself to the average person) comes from studying plane crashes, structural engineering, and building fires. Each of those studies is very important to this, don't you agree?
|
Of course, but again you miss the point. You have self-described experts on both sides of this issue. Why should I believe you?
And you say above you studied these things because of this very question, correct? Can you honestly say that you had no opinions on whether or not there was a conspiracy before you began your research? My point is that I am sure you now know a great many things about melting steel, fire temperatures, etc., but so do lots of other people who disagree with you. Why should I believe you over them? Why should I trust your research over theirs?
Of course, you can reverse the question, too: why should I believe them over you? Because I am biased, obviously. But - and here's the kicker - you probably are too!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
3. You assume that I desire the outcome that America is being lied to? Go the the Dissapearing 747 and truth about 9/11 threads and read my posts. Several times I plead with people to give me a better explaination. It would be sick of me to want to find out that we have all been lied to in the supposed largest terrorist attack in history. I am not sick, balderdash. As a matter of fact, I am still hoping that someone will be able to get their heads around this better than I could, and give me a perfectly logical explaination.
|
I have no idea what your motives are. In fact, I think you are probably quite sincere in thinking there is something fishy going on. I choose not to agree with you, and I jumped into this thread to point out a different interpetation of the facts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You should be careful assuming people are wackos. I'm both looking for and presenting facts.
|
Hmm.... searching text for wacko..... nope.
I think you are wrong about WTC7, but I don't think you are, as you so colorfully put it, wacko.
Look, will... you've built quite a reputation for yourself as the resident expert on the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I have no intention of changing your mind or of trying to tear you down. I don't have the knowledge of the event that you do, so you could run circles around me asking questions I can't answer.
However, I see testimony and findings by people who are very very smart and very very experienced and they disagree with you. So, when forced to choose between the credibility of "anonymous TFP person" and "expert in architecture and disaster investigation" I generally go with the latter unless there is some very compelling reason not to. I don't see such a reason here.
I think it would be fascinating to see a discussion between you and another expert on this subject, even though I think I'd quickly get completely lost.
Just out of curiosity, though, when it comes to all the others who say 9/11 was a terrorist attack and that WTC7 collapsed because of fire and structural damage, do you think they don't understand the facts, or that they are themselves involved in the conspiracy? Either answer, I think, would collapse under logical scrutiny.