Probably, yeah, especially if their story is directly contradicted by the physical evidence.
So if someone says they were the fighter pilot who brought down flight 93 with a missile, and the wreckage of flight 93 shows no evidence of being hit by a missile (and in fact shows that it was not hit by a missile) then you’d probably feel pretty justified in dismissing their account, wouldn’t you?
And if their story kept changing to make it impossible for any available evidence to disprove what they are saying, you’d start to feel that they were not telling the truth, no?
So when the missile changes to a special missile that nobody anywhere has ever heard of which leaves no marks and also broadcasts a special signal that overrides the flight data recorder, causing it to record false data showing that everything was working fine until the plane went into a steep dive and smacked into the ground and (so forth), at some point wouldn’t you think “This person’s story is full of holes” and seriously question their credibility?
That’s just basic critical thinking and it’s what we’re trying to apply to these situations.
I already explained to you what it would look like. You hand waved it away. Now you are wanting us to explain what it would sound like so you can do the same? No thanks.
At last! We come to the crux of your argument. This isn’t about 9/11, it’s about your hatred of corporations, weapons manufacturers, and any other powerful group you yourself feel powerless against. You can feel the hatred all the way to your bones can’t you?
You’re blinded by hate - to you it makes perfect sense that these people you hate so much would willingly kill thousands of people just to start a war for their own profit. You can’t even recognize outside threats - to you the only threat we face are the corporations you hate so much.
For proof you give us 9/11 to show how much harm these people you hate so much are doing to us. The only problem is, physical evidence from that day all points to somebody different than who you KNOW deep down is actually responsible for the attack. Why can’t we all see the truth!?!?!?
We can’t see because you’ve turned your enemies into cartoon superheroes! You’ve given them mythic abilities and a level of control that is impossible to maintain in real life.
It’s ok to distrust the government. And yes, there truly are corporations who are only looking out for their own interests. And there are plenty of people who stand up to these groups and successfully reveal corruption and scandel. But they do it through real evidence. They do it through due process. The don’t just make shit up and then get pissy when nobody believes them.
The same intense hole-finding scrutiny you apply to the mainstream account, ivan astikov? Can you imagine what it would be like to apply that to all your proposed or hinted at alternative possibilities? Because that’s exactly what the rest of us are doing. We’re rejecting your proposals because they strike us as absurd and nonsensical. We’re doing the same thing you see yourself as doing.
If “the official story” were any of these alternative proposals, you’d be all over it like fucking that. You’d call it amateur, shoddy, see-through bullshit, and point out all the ways in which it utterly is contradicted by both the evidence and simple logic. And we’d all agree with you.
Your views aren’t marginalized because we lack the ability to be sufficiently skeptical. Your views are marginalized precisely because we have this ability.
This is hilarious - you are arguing that when virtually everyone believes something, it is usually wrong. That is, that it is a “momentous occasion in history” when the truth is generally believed, and that as a general rule, popular concensus is wrong about everything.
Explosives aren’t quiet and subtle? A sham! Everyone knows that explosives damaging enough to singlehandedly cut a skyscraper in half are quieter than a baby’s fart.
Individual floors of a skyscraper will give out when hundreds of tons of rubble are dropped on them? Nonsense! All materials are unbreakable in all conditions, unless you blow them up with baby-fart explosives.
New York exists? Nonsense! It’s all a scam created by the government and Hollywood and the Vogons.
Gravity? It’s a scam. When you drop something it falls up! You know this is true because everyone says otherwise!
Remember people, don’t fall for argumentum ad populum!
I weigh 100 kilograms. A 5.56mm NATO standard bullet fired from a C7A2 weights about four grams - about 1/25,000th my weight. A four-ounce weight hitting me couldn’t possibly knock me over.
But fire a 5.56 round through my heart and I’ll go down instantly.
The building was not knocked over by the plane. It collapsed because the fire started by the plane weakened the building’s structure. Why is that so hard to understand?
Similarly, how many pounds of explosives would be required to bring down the WTC? Is it more or less than the weight of a 747? If a relatively small amount of explosives can bring down the towers, then there’s nothing inherently absurd about a relatively small amount of airplane bringing them down.
Presuming of course that the airplane was entirely composed of higly explosive materials, and presumably located in the same place(s) where the explosive would have to be to do the job.
Absent that we have to rely on other indirect forces, like fire, doing damage of a different type than the explosions in order to weaken a portion of the building eventually to the point of collapse.
Right. My point is just that saying, “The airplane is so much smaller than the building!” isn’t persuasive, because no matter what caused the collapse, it was smaller than a skyscraper by several orders of magnitude.
Unless they knocked down one tower by ramming it with the other, I suppose.
I thought they crashed the planes into the buildings to create a diversion so the two demolitions teams disguised as firemen could sneak in and plant the explosive charges. After all, there’s no way the buildings could have been rigged to blow BEFORE the planes hit – someone would have noticed and gotten suspicious. But in the confusion afterward it was EASY to smuggle the bombs in.
How many times have I heard that idiotic comparison to a bullet hitting an animate object?
Suppose you found a tree with a diameter such that if you cut it 5 feet above the ground the stump would be 200 lb.
What do you think would happen if you shot that with a 5.56 round?
There had to be enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to support another 21 stories. Why doesn’t EVERYONE want to know the QUANTITY OF STEEL to come up with an explanation for how it could weaken in LESS THAN ONE HOUR?
That is just one if three reasons for wanting the information.
The NIST tested 4 floor section in furnaces for 2 hours. THEY DID NOT FAIL! But they had fire proofing. But people claim the plane impact knocked fireproofing off so those tests don’t matter. But wouldn’t the SCIENTIFIC thing to do be to make more panels and test them without fireproofing? So why haven’t they done it?
Of course if they do the test and they don’t fail then they would have a serious problem. Maybe they don’t want to do the test because they prefer to avoid the possibility of that problem.
It’s called physics dude. Haven’t you heard? This is the nation that put men on the Moon. And 40 years later most Americans can’t figure out Newtonian physics.
