That would be a more reasonable argument that it not existing..period. You can use the same approach to the "official" conclusions drawn by folks. IMO, there is valid chain of custody anywhere in the "official" BS story. Doesn't stop folks from jumping to preconceived conclusions anyway. "Just trust us" seems to be the paramount theme throughout the "official" fable.
Agreed. But then the only thing you are left with is to look at ALL the possible explanations and decide for yourself which is the most likely or plausible. Many of the theories that challenge the "official" account don't do that. They take a grain of truth and run with it and do not examine other possibilities. The thermate/mite issue is a good example. Here is a good source for that discussion. http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
I think it would easily be a product of foreign occupation. Not in the sense that its just military occupation but more of a projection of power. Radicals need a target, Western Europe served that target for years and the US is the obvious dominating power in that scenario. I think until the entire Arab world controls its population (which very few governments do) the US will be a prime target.
I'm very familiar with that source of disinformation. (speaking of taking a grain of truth and running with it...or less).
Can you counter their claims or do you just summarily dismiss them because they don't support your theories.
I dismiss their claims after confronting opposing evidence. (the actual evidence...not the "official" BS chewed on by the moronic public).
Fair enough. No one really knows for sure. You just have to look at all the scenarios and decide for yourself which one sounds more plausible. Do you have some sources for this opposing evidence? I'd be interested in taking a look.
Mike Williams (founder of the disinformation website you refer to), is discussed here: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/4114632/1/ This is obviously only a forum but it is reflective of what Mr. Williams and his website are considered by most thinking and truth seeking individuals. To summarize though, the man is a liar, and his website (no longer updated) is classic disinformation. If you have time, spend some looking around within the boards, and you'll find some interesting information regarding 9/11 and what "real people" actually think. Good day.
I have no problem with your source being a blog. The problem I see is that your attacking the compiler, not refuting the heavily linked and sourced evidence that he is presenting. I'm not that interested in what people "think". I am interested in what they know and what the available evidence tells us. Was it something I said??
As should I. I'm still waiting for refutations to the evidence he presented, not just a summary dismissal of the information he compiled. Aside from that, what is your position on the AE911 Truth video?
Well, since you're asking my position on WTC7, I'll assume you don't really think I am a shill. Being as I have not insulted you in our exchanges here on PF, I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy. On WTC7 . . . in what I saw on the AE911Truth video, I am a little perplexed at the fact that NIST stated that they really didn't have a good explanation (or words to that effect) of what exactly caused WTC7 to collapse the way it did. Also, if the AE911 Truth people are to be believed, the models that NIST came up with don't even match the video of WTC7 collapsing and won't release the data that they used to build the model. Having said that, as I stated in the other thread regarding the AE911 Truth video, there are other parts of the AE911 version that seem suspect. What are your views?
I'm not completely convinced of your objectivity. My optimism of something different going on was premature and a bit naive. I'll try and do better. Those are my views.
Regardless of your opinion of my objectivity, I would be interested in your views regarding the AE911 Truth video. Part of the problem with the alternate theories is that there are just too (*)(*)(*)(*) many of them that don't agree with each other. They range anywhere from the plausible (I would put (most) of the AE911 Truth video there) to the really wild and frankly unbelievable. I would put the "planes faked in the video" there. It is difficult to remain objective when someone (not you) is claiming UFOs were involved.
Well, I suppose anything's possible with the majority of the American Idol watching public, not questioning the "official" BS story.
So everyone who questions your cockeyed views is a 'shill'? Christ,I wish I was getting paid for this....help buy my medication
No...not everyone. Some are simply and truly just that ignorant. Once they bump into unbelievable things like WTC7, confiscated films from 86 cameras, buried planes with bouncing engines, etc,etc, MOST reasonable people would admit, at that point, that something's wrong with the "official" picture. (Doesn't happen here in shill land Inc...just sayin')
Nothing about building 7 is 'unbelievable' and where EXACTLY does the number '86 cameras with film confiscated come from? And since none of the crash investigators were there at the crash,they just give their best estimate of what happened.
Your "view" of WTC7 speaks volumes. 86 cameras from surrounding hotels, gas stations, DOT video, etc,etc. 86. We were shown 4 frames of "something" from "something". (sorry...best I can describe what I saw).
Why exactly would any of these cameras be in a position to view the pentagon? Wouldn't they be watching parking lots,gas pumps,freeway traffic,etc.,etc.,and you didn't answer my question.....WHERE the the number '86 videos confiscated' come from?
If I post the information, you'll at least acknowledge they exist, right? Edit Oh...what the hell. http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/...r-without-being-called-a-conspiracy-theorist/ Now I'll wait for you to respond that everything is completely bogus.
