lurking in wrote:

"How many have the integrity, in a free society, to speak out against the vicious murders of 3,000 of their fellow human beings? Again, from my experience with humanity, significantly more than one percent."


_________________

I didn't want to ignore your point.



First, they must be willing.

It's fairly evident that <some> of the discussion partners don't know about the issues with Bldg. 7. This group being a generally well-informed and most often objective, I find that indicative of the general populace, who are often less so.

The question is not, "How many have the integrity," the question is, "How many have the will?" The inclination?

It's not as straightforward as a rightful claim to personal integrity. Bad evidence turned into emotional ploys still colors thought on the subject. Must one be a lunatic to consider "new" evidence? Even amongst this highly rational group, from what I read here, the answer is, "Yes."

Ask a TBM if he has personal integrity, and you may receive a litany of the rules to which he sincerely adheres, those beliefs for which the only support is the "official" story.

Many threads include subjects / responses of "You can only teach the willing."

So, I put it back to you:

What are the issues with bldg 7, and, how could credible professionals claim that the official story rises or falls on them?

If you can't answer those questions, you don't have all* the evidence.

Most cannot answer, not even the pros.

If I ask you to elaborate on the free-falls of the towers, can you?

My theory is that people have a 911 shelf, and most don't care what's on it, as long as they never have to feel the full weight of it again. They are comfortable where they are, thank you.

Compare it to TBM shelves. Dismantling the 911 shelf - what's the payoff?

On the day and in the years following the crime, we wanted answers, most yearned for justice. The same answers, from the same governing bodies, aped on every commercial news outlet. Decent reporters asking painful questions, all getting the same answer, usually from one source, or a source quoting that source.

Huh?

When have "experts" ever been in such agreement with each other? Where was the point, counter-point?

No credible counter-sources came forth, because any who did were deemed USA Apostate, lunatic fringe, consigned to the outer darkness of anti-nationalism. Count me in. That's where I put them, too. Many who claim to "know" the answers, but lack evidence, still belong there.

So no, I'm not one of the theorists, but neither do I believe the un/dis-proven claims of either side. It took ten years for me to look at my 911 shelf. It didn't take nearly that long for it to fall to the floor in an ugly heap.


"Huge conspiracy" is an oxymoron.



*all - no one will ever have "all" of the evidence, used here to mean "both sides," but that wasn't accurate, either. These experts don't claim to know exactly what did happen, but they can demonstate that the official story was/is full of faulty and misleading evidence. They reveal NIST's self-contradictory and nonscientific (kindly) statements.

oxymormon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2015 06:06PM by Shummy.

Thanks for your response.

I really don't have the energy to address your questions in depth. Sorry. (I definitely concede the enthusiasm points to you!) All I can respond with, in a general sense is this, repeating what I said before: I did quite a bit of research on this subject in the past, looking at both sides of the issue, and was satisfied that the mainstream explanation was the correct one. Could the explanation supported by the minority be correct? Of course.

But the conspiracy (actually multiple conspiracies) needed to pull off a "demolition"-type 9/11, in a free and open society, where the press LOVES to expose government lies, and leaks to the press are abundant, and then being able to keep the secret for any length of time, are more than my imagination can fathom. It wouldn't just require conspiracies with the planners, but with those experts needed to pull it off, the many investigators involved after the fact and of course the press, among others, as well as overwhelming disinterest and/or lack or integrity among the professionals in the relevant fields, when faced with thousands of murders that they could help redress.

I'm going to leave it at that. If you'd like to respond, please do. This will be my last post on this thread. (Maybe we should give this subject a rest for a while. I think admin would probably appreciate it!)

: )

lurking in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But the conspiracy (actually multiple
> conspiracies) needed to pull off a
> "demolition"-type 9/11, in a free and open
> society, where the press LOVES to expose
> government lies, and leaks to the press are
> abundant, and then being able to keep the secret
> for any length of time, are more than my
> imagination can fathom.

So what happens when the Government Prevaricators turn out to have your intrepid PRESS in their pocket?

"Abundant leaks" to such a prostitute media can be kept secret for any length of time the cabal likes.

Thus, this good 9/11 conspiracy continues its career of endless disinfo with Mossad and its USG pals laughing up their sleeves.

How can you type "free and open society" with a straight face?

Whether it is a fault or not, I am comfortable falling asleep nights 'not knowing'.

Just from my limited experience in the ex-mo world, I am familiar with contrary opinions coming from the same set of data. And obviously by using 'data' instead 'facts', I am saying that just because it's written or recorded, doesn't make it true.

For instance, did you know that prior to 1492, the so-called Western Hemisphere did not exist? In a Pew poll in 1489, 93.9% of European responding agreed that people who 'believed' in a 'Western Hemisphere' were delusional. Fact!

OP, why go "anon?"

As pointed out in the other thread, *of course* the huge "official" report contains errors. Something that voluminous, the collated work of so many different people, can hardly be otherwise.
Some engineers and architects have pointed out those errors.
Not one of those errors impacts the parts that are demonstrably correct, or the conclusions.
And to characterize the report as "full of" errors is dishonest -- it's not.

Finally, the point "conspirators" continually miss: pointing out the flaws in THEIR claims (and there are lots of them) does not mean any competing claims (including the official ones) are all "true." It's just pointing out the flaws in those claims. All claims have to stand or fall on the claimed evidence for them. "Conspiracy" claims fall for lack of evidence. They fall hard. And so many of the "conspiracy" claims are so patently false they're laughable -- such is the case with the WTC-7 "was detonated" claim. And hundreds of others.