Amskeptic wrote:Lanval wrote:Here's a link to
Popular Mechanics which debunks the WTC collapse as conspiracy.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/1227842
Truly, though, if you think that the WTC could be demolished by a conspiracy and kept hidden, I guess you'd believe that
PM could be bought out as well...
Mike
I would not want to be categorized as irrational when I share that I have many many questions that have not been answered to my satisfaction. I too, am amazed at how neatly the WTC buildings pancaked.
WTC7 is a big question. Seven hours after the planes hit the towers, this little 47 story building just had to go down, perfectly? It collapsed in 7 seconds, only a second slower than free-fall gravity.
We have some incredible skyscraper fires on record, Caracas Venezuela, the spectacular February 9, 2009 Mandarin Oriental hotel fire in Beijing, the Windsor Building fire in Madrid in February 2005, even a couple here in the U.S. where the involvement to the building was far more severe, and
none of the others
collapsed, much less pancaked with the precision of a controlled demolition as did all three of the collapsed buildings at WTC. Look at the other four WTC buildings that got hammered and burned for hours and hours. They look like they suffered, particularly #4, but they were standing. Building 7? Pretty spiffy before it dropped so nicely.
Don't dismiss those of us who question as crackpots. These are questions that cannot be answered easily.
Colin
The urge to see the machinations of those we hate in the evil deed that surround us is as old as man himself. I don't like Bush, and I consider Cheney a traitor worthy of trial. Even so, I argue that pull off this sort of thing would require more involvement and knowledge than could be easily kept secret, particularly since Bush/Cheney knew quite well that:
1. Sooner or later they'd be out of office; some evidence would be left behind, no matter how carefully planned. Someone would find it, and they'd be in trouble.
2. There are too many people in
any version of the US gov't who both don't like the current regime, and have the power to do something about it. CIA, NSA, Congress and the Senate to name a few. No way could a controlled and deliberate destruction of those towers been done by the US or some faction of the US. Even less so is it possible that it could have been done by someone else with a grudge.
That said, the various incidents that people have questioned have been answered in detail by men who are well-paid to know whereof they speak.
Thus:
If you don't trust the various sources from outside the gov't which have turned an eye towards those theories and found them wanting, then ultimately you argue that it's
all a conspiracy. There is no
knowable truth, it's just lies upon lies. If that's the case then why bother searching for the truth at all? Why even question the authorities if, when your question is answered, you simply dismiss the answer itself as a charade meant to draw our attention away from the man behind the curtain?
Asking questions is not a problem; indeed, asking difficult and unpleasant questions is a requirement of our democratic state. But if every answer that doesn't correlate with your assumption of evil/conspiracy/trick is rejected, then you're not questioning ~ you're seeking confirmation of a worldview you already hold, and are no longer part of the solution, but part of the problem.
Let us not go down this road; until some evidence to the contrary appears, we must assume our best answers are true. This is, and has been since the moment man turned away from the failed promises of religion toward the more substantive, but less soothing answers that rational thought and science offer, the core of our democracy, even our race.
Mike
