Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Well, this is a problem with the 9/11 debate. A lot of people on my side of the discussion like to jump from one thing to the next without establishing one thing: a common frame of reference. That frame of reference has to be an agreement that the official story is not the most likely explanation, then we can move on to what is the most likely explanation.
|
This is where I differ from the norm. I am an automotive technician. I say this because I do not fall under the common nomenclature of "a mechanic" because in todays cars there are too many computers for a "mechanic" to fix.
You say "That frame of reference has to be an agreement that the official story is not the most likely explanation, then we can move on to what is the most likely explanation." But I disagree. As a technician on cars I have learned one thing that has helped me time and time again, sometimes rather than look at what is a possibility of what might NOT have caused the problem, I like to sometimes eliminate what DOES work, and the other questions answer themselves.
I do like the idea of a common frame of reference as you have stated, but it seems like not enough people can agree on one. So why not look at the abstract, and see what DOES work, instead of eliminating what one might say IS the fault? I hope I explained this properly.