Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
When the facts are in contrast to what you mighty consider the easiest explaination, it ceases to be the most likely explaination and thus Occam no longer applies.
|
Your 'facts' are merely questions, not facts. All you really have is a series of questions. They are very interesting questions, but I think the majority of them can be answered through reasonable means without resorting to a government coverup (which we have seen by past events, generally don't turn out that well).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
But why was it so curcular? The simplest answer is something that is cylindrical and very, very hard. Occcam says: a missle is the most likely reason, not coincedental debreis.
Then what was able to puncture clear though all the rings and create that infamous hole?
|
No, Occam's wouldn't suggest a missile here. The simplest explanation is that when you have a 155' tube striking a building at 350 mph, generally the kinetic force is going to propel debris forward in a circular pattern. It doesn't need to actually punch the hole itself. The debris that it imparts its energy upon can do that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Don't you think the wing of a plane hitting the side of a building would break the glass?
|
I don't know what kind of glass it was. Some glass, yes. There are a lot of these little details that the very interesting questions leave out. You describe 'glass' and think household window glass. This wasn't necessarily household window glass, and could very well have been bullet-proof glass.
The questions also leave out the question of the angle of energy of the plane itself. If it was at a downward angle, and it was hardened glass, it could have been hit with very little of the kinetic energy from the plane itself.
Again, there are too many details in the event that merely asking questions doesn't really lead to answers. "Why didn't the glass break?" may seem like a very simple question and lead to some very speculative answers, but there are many details in the answer that a casual speculator wouldn't even consider. There are a lot of assumptions in the question, in other words.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
It is possible, and not improbable, that our government has the want, the means, and the testicular fortitude to lie to us. Is it not reasonable to include that in drawing conclusions about what we hear from them?
|
You may believe so, but I don't. The size and scope of the cover-up in this case (something that happened in front of many many witnesses) is too large , really. Nixon couldn't cover up something that happened in his office in front of 3 people, Reagan couldn't cover up his dabblings in Central America, and Clinton couldn't cover up what happened in his office between him and Monica, even though the door was mostly closed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Circular time...but aren't you dismissing someone simply because they dismissed someone else? Just kidding.
If you click the paranoia buttton, you should know that anything and everything you read will require an open mind. That being said, I welcome any sceptics (or realists, if you prefer).
|
Ahh, but I'm not the one that accused someone else of not having an open mind simply because someone disagreed with me. It's possible for me to hear the argument, consider it, and then dismiss it and still retain an open mind. The previous accuser considered that simply because somebody dismissed their claims they must not have an open mind. Therefore, they do not have an open mind enough to consider the possibility that the accusee actually DOES have an open mind, and yet still rejected their claims.
Do ya follow? ...
