|
Actually, I think that planes hit the towers on 9/11. I was just trying to point out that people's certainty on this should be tested.
Still, I do have questions that have never been answered about that day, especially things like the tiny hole in the Pentagon. Aluminum doesn't atomize on impact, It shreds. So either the entire plane went into a hole around 10' across or the wreckage should have been right there in front of the building. Neither of those circumstances existed (the plane cannot fit into a hole that small, and there was almost no wreckage on the lawn), therefore it's not unreasonable to bring new explanations to the table and postulate on them based on available evidence.
I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable person. I try to be skeptical and open minded. Many supposed facts about the occurrences surrounding 9/11 are highly suspect, and it's not unreasonable to ask questions. Dilbert and I went back and fourth for page after page in another thread, and we both found the same evidence and came to two different reasonable conclusions. I'm not going to say that Dilbert is an idiot (he's really not) or even that he is definitely wrong; I will simply say that we are coming to two completely different conclusions based on a lot of the same evidence. I felt like a lot of what Dilbert was doing was more like stretching the laws of physics and reason in his specific explanations of my questions; and he probably felt like the big picture I was painting was unreasonable.
It's just one of those big questions that's really difficult.
|