Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
I was referring to the dust clowd
|
Again, not sure of the relevance. What does a "dust clowd" [
sic] generated by the controlled demolition of a small building have to do with the events of September 11th, 2001? I don't really see how there's any connection to be made between the two aside from the fact that some buildings collapsed and even then I don't know what that was meant to support. Are you saying that the completely unrelated demolition you happened to be near provides evidence supporting the web sites posted, or discrediting them? And if so, how? Making a random statement proves nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
My cat is grey.
|
See? Nothing proven, aside from the colour of my feline companion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
I know by the fact the building passed city inspections.
|
Are you a building inspector in New York State? Or maybe an architect? A lawyer even? Can you claim any sort of familiarity with the building codes of New York, city or state? If not, then how can you use that as support of an argument? You make the valid assumption that the building passed inspection and was therefore up to code. Do you have any idea what that entails in terms of generators and pressurized fuel lines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
I understand how you feel, I find it "frustrating" when people refuse to do their own research.
|
I assume this was meant as a barb at me, so I'll address it. The thing is, I've done my own research. As soon as I heard about a possible conspiracy theory I started researching the issue. I went to the library. I checked websites on both sides of the debate. I did all of this four bloody years ago and I came to the conclusion that there wasn't any compelling evidence that supported a conspiracy theory. Ever since then, I've watched the so-called 'truth seekers' rehash the same tired old arguments while taking quotes from nearly any and every figure of authority out of context, misinterpreting evidence and occasionally blatantly ignoring anything that contradicts their pet theory(-ies). I'm exercising my own form of willful ignorance in attributing this to a lack of understanding and not outright malice.
Again, for emphasis.
Parsimony. I don't even have to tell you to look it up, since there is now a definition right here in the thread (thanks, Sticky!). So just try to remember that in the absence of any other factors, the explanation with the fewest unknown entities is almost always the correct one. If your cookies go missing and I'm in the room, you'll probably blame me and not cookie ninjas. Towers collapsed after being hit by speeding jet liners; me, I think terrorists and not death rays.