Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
I don't know about intelligent, but reasonable I can agree with. I can see why someone would want to keep it quiet for equally reasonable (if debatable) reasons too.
I think the way the events of 9/11 were used as leverage for otherwise unpalatable foreign, and home security policies is questionable, but I think it's a step too far to suggest they were orchestrated by the US government.
|
I hope you're right! 'Hope for the best, prepare for the worst' has always been my philosophy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
Yes, by all means investigate evidence that differs from the accepted story, but anyone doing so should wait until you they have full and uncontrovertible evidence before linking it to notions of conspiracy and cover-up - Doing so prematurely skews further investigation and (equally importantly) makes it harder for others to view it from an unbiased standpoint.
|
Well, in my mind just one of the presented facts is enough to take a closer look. The fact that the investigation that did happen was so crappy is reason enough to investigate further. Let's put it this way: the collapses were obviously suspect. If your theory is correct, then why wasn't it covered in the 9/11 commission? Only a few pages from that report were classified, and they had to do with the financing of 9/11, not the collapses or crashes. Also, the extreem tardiness of the NORAD interceptors in response to the hijackings (something that should have taken 5 minutes, but took over 2-4 hours) was never addressed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
Taking the (hypothetical) decision to take down a building still containing people because it may risk more lives if allowed to fall in an uncontrolled manner has got to be one of the most difficult decisions anyone is likely to make. It must be done with as much cool-headed composure as is (or isn't) humanly possible - should people in that position have to live through that, and then have to justify their choice to the families of those they chose to kill?
|
The military has to justify civilian casualties (at least they should). I see this as basically the same thing. Say, "I'm sorry we had to do this, but it was necessary", not "Conspiracy theories are for crazy people, let's go to war."
If I had to sacrafice one person to save 1000, I wouldn't lie about sacraficing the one person. I would apologize.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
Thank you both for setting this thread back on track.....I honestly appreciate it
|
My pleasure.
