|
That's an interesting debate technique. Assume that the official version is wrong (not the most likely, by some measure or other) and go from there. It's comparable to "Assume that the earth is flat. Now let's go on to explain celestial mechanics from that point of view."
We can assume that terrorists flew airplanes into buildings, which then collapsed. In addition to eyewitnesses seeing the planes, we have the admission of the terrorists them selves.
We can assume that there was some sort of government conspiracy, which provided some sort of cover that only appeared to be terrorists flying airplanes into buildings.
Maybe it isn't the best starting point you have there. Maybe you would want to start with evidence. You know, the conspiracy theories only gain traction when you make an assumption such as the NIST investigation was all a sham.
|