Quote:
|
If you do not think that there is enough evidence that the official story is flawed and contradicted to the point that it is compromised, please post your opinion on what you would need to see, in addtion to the following, to raise doubts in your mind that would be great enough to change your opinion:
|
You're right, I didn't see this section of you OP, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asking me
what more I'd need to see (within reason) to believe that the official story is flawed and contradicted to the point that it is compromised?
I think you've worded this carefully, so I'll address the words carefully. I agree with two of three points.
I believe;
(1) The official story is flawed. There are details of the events which we will necessarily never know (passenger conversations, fuel levels in the jets, etc). There are also details which cannot be released, for
legitimate security reasons (specific terrorist plans), and there are details which could've been released but were not. The last category is naturally of concern, but I think it (like I mentioned in my previous posts) stems from their desire to stay in power. By hiding some of the details, their authority is necessitated, and their arguments given more credence. I think it is natural for leaders to omit occasional details which pose them in a bad light.
(2) The story is contradicted. I think this is another effect of bureaucracy and the number of people involved in such a thing. If you tell two people the same story of a series of events, they'll likely repeat that story in two very different ways. If you continue this series (like the childhood game Operator), the end result is a very different story. This alone IS NOT enough to discredit the original story, however. The 'operator' in the game above presumably knows the whole story and tells the truth, so the fact that his compatriots do not repeat the same story does not invalidate his.
And yet, when we arrive at "(3) the story is compromised", I disagree. Despite obvious lies, confusion, contradiction and direct omission of information, I do not believe that the general story ("Airplanes hijacked by a terrorist organization crashed into the Twin Towers, causing structural failure and eventual collapse") to be compromised.
As for the concluding question, I think I would need the following in order to believe the story was compromised:
(1) Substantial and verifiable admissions by persons directly involved in the "actual" events. The main conspiracy theory is that it was some sort of thermite-powered controlled demolition, so I would need a verifiable engineer or worker who blew the whistle, and claimed that he was involved in the planning or execution of such a demolition.
(2) Evidence with demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that "The Powers That Be" were aware of the individuals discovered in (1).
and
(3) Scientific research which earnestly claimed that a controlled demolition (or similar conspiracy) was a MORE feasible explanation than the one we all witnessed through the media (planes crashing into buildings), including analysis of the cost of such a conspiracy, the materials needed, and the engineering required to architect such a thing.
** The problem for us, host, is that it is unlikely, for a multitude of reasons, that any of my required evidence, (1), (2), or (3) will ever be available, or in the case that it is available, reputable enough for me to believe. And because of this, I will continue to believe that ALTHOUGH the President, VP, and other members of the administration manipulated the fallout of such a tragedy for their own personal and political gain, the event itself was not previously 'orchestrated', as I believe you do.