Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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:
|
Check out the video on the first page in my first post. It's a copy of what was shown on tv when WTC7 collapsed. Just watch it a few times and draw your own conclusions. I've obvciously drawn mine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
Replace "WTC7" with "nearby fire engines." Were fire engines destroyed as part of a conspiracy? No, a building fell on them. Ditto for WTC7.
|
How much of North Tower and/or South Tower did fall on them? It's hard to tell. The FEMA report is all we really have to go on besides the footage and pictures.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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!
|
That's a judgement call. I'll understand if you want to err on the side of the norm. That's certianally a safer side to be on. Just remember that just as you are not alone on your side, I am not alone by any means on mine. There are several groups out there trying to raise awarness of the facts I've shared with you guys on this board in order to give people a more complete picture. You know how freedom comes with a price of eternal vigelance? To many people this is part of the vigelance. If there waas some foul play, people deserve to know about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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.
|
Sounds perfectly fair.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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.
|
While I don't have any provabae credentials (I can't post any personal information about myself, including diplomas), how sure are you that the people on the other side of the argument are so trustworthy? By "expert in architecture and disaster investigation", you probably mean someone who has either written for the FEMA report, worked for the 9/11 Commission, or who has been called as an expert in the media. If we're talking about FEMA, we're talking about a pretty respected organization. The problem is that several parts of their report are wrong. Check out
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...ut-trusses.htm
I know it's not a reputable site, but check it out and consider it seriously before dismissing it.
The 9/11 commission was a joke. Several people on the commission actually were profiteers of the 9/11 attacks. They never addressed any of the logistical problems with 9/11 (even the ones that have noi connection to the conspiracy here).
As for media experts, well if you want to trust CNN or MSNBC, that's your call.
Just consider that perhaps neither side deeserves your trust. Perhaps you shoul do the research yourself before deciding, just like I did.