Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgeedo
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."
|
This is, quite plainly, completely and totally incorrect in every single way. A careful reading of this thread demonstrates clearly the exact opposite of what you're saying here.
This thread is about presenting evidence, testing that evidence, and coming to a conclusion. It assumes nothing. Comparing it to flat earth theory is offensive. This thread has stood as an example of an evidence based conversation on the events of 9/11 which is exceedingly rare. Please reread MSD's introduction.
Post #65 was an aside in which I tried to illustrate why evidence based discussion was necessary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wilrlavel
Unfortunately, it begs some rather frightening questions, and that's when things generally get way, way off track in a thread like this. Someone says "controlled demolition", someone else asks "why?", they try to guess, but then the whole issue moves away from facts and gets so deep into speculation that it can become silly. I'm pretty sure aliens aren't responsible for 9/11, for example.
|
We don't want wild assumptions and baseless theories. We want facts.