Quote:
Originally Posted by troy2000
| A plausible-sounding conspiracy case can be made for any major event in history, if you work at it.
I prefer to work at a simpler level. Were the people accused of the deed capable of it? I think the answer is yes, regardless of the scientific quibbling.
Did anyone else have more to gain than they did? No.
Bush and the government certainly didn't need 9/11 to kickstart their agenda; look at the way they just flat lied our way into Iraq. Lies are cheaper, easier, more dependable than disasters, and they don't backfire nearly as bad as physically getting caught creating a disaster.
And if someone wanted to FAKE an attack, there are definitely easier ways than rigging two highrises with explosives, somehow without anyone from the maintenance workers to the cleaning staff noticing the activity or the mess.
I think the operative word is "common sense," which is usually the first casualty of a conspiracy theory. I don't need to refute all the pseudo-scientific evidence, to know that this particular conspiracy theory doesn't pass the smell test.
Nor do I need to accept someone else's explanation for something just because I can't explain it. I can just say, "OK. I can't explain this, but I'll bet there's a reasonable explanation that doesn't involve a conspiracy. |
The last there says you already have a preconceived notion and are just going to look at things that support that. Obvious you will just dismiss eveything else.
common sense says that a building contructed like the WTC would not collapse at free-fall nor the way it did. common sense says that there would not be a huge quantity of molten steel and slag at the base of the buildings that continued to flow for days after.
"plausible-sounding" truths and flasehoods can be made up for anything. What does that prove? nothing!
look at it at a simpler level? were the people accused capable? YES (BTW, we are saying the gov. are the accused here). In fact, was the US gov MORE capable of doing it than a gang of cave rats? YES! in simple terms, what does that prove?
Did anyone else have anything more to gain? YES! I guess a gang of cave rats would have good reason to jump in glee, but who could gain a whole lot more? Maybe the US GOV? What else happened at the time of the attack...I think I also read something about millions of dollars dissapeared..other inside transfers related to the economy...if you only would have known ahead of time, you could postion yourself quite well to gain quite a bit. Now, who had more to gain? It would not be the first time the gov. rapped its citizens. simple terms.
The bush admin DID need a terror event to start their agenda. The little nazi NEEDED to strike fear into americans to push his agenda. the previous system would not support or tolerate actions that are taking place today. simple. Afgan and Iraq, maybe not. patriot act...YES it was needed. Now after the terror shock has just about been exhuasted...the little nazi is becoming blatent about his actions...you wait till they raid Google and TAKE what they want, because they "have" authority. Self proclaimed authority to ANYTHING they want, in the name of national security. There had to be a threat to that security before any of that would fly.
that is the simple level of it, which means absolutely nothing because at that level, anything and everything is true or false... and it has nothing to do with logic, reason, and the true evidence. Which is why I choose to ignore the political aspect of any of it, because it cannot be proven one way or the other...but you cannot cheat science, not even by attaching a fancy adjective to it.
The science is properly applied. If you can explain one thing, explaing the
Anyway, thank you Outriderdark and the others for your *genuine* attention to this. Some people choose to see with their eyes open, others choose to see with them closed.
