Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Fatsom is kinda right. We've been dancing around this the whole time, but he's right.
|
willravel,
I have been wathching this thread from the sidelines. I don't usually post in Paranoia but I wanted challenge what you said becuase when I read Fatsom's anology I did not buy it either.
Fatsom's anology has two parts to it,
1) how he uses the analogy to say that while they may be physically possible the arguments put forward by those supporting the generally accepted (and I say generally accepted because it is probably true that most people just accept it) reasoning for what brought down the towers are just so unlikely. His analogy takes it a little to far in stating that these same people would use science to justify the person not hitting the ground. I will give him that however, becuase that was one of his the point (I assume, I have not talked to him) of using an anlogy.
2) how he presents his side as if he has all the answers, that the answers are obvious, and that they are so clear that they are impossible to miss. Saying that he would notice the rubber cord around the guys ankles is saying that his theories on the destruction of the towers are so obvious that anyone who can't see them must be blind.
I think that in his analogy someone who did not consider the cord around the ankles is blind. I don't think that is the case for the towers.
I think fatsom's first point is kind of teh argument that you have been making on this thread recently. You are saying that while it may be possible if everything lined up perfectly, you just don't buy it. That you feel that there has to be some other factors and that you are not sure of what those factors may be.
The second part of Fatsom's analogy says that his theory is a fact that is plain to see.