07-13-2006, 07:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2006, 07:52 PM by Chesspiece_face.)
Quote:Didn't want to make a new thread for this, and the search function wouldn't play nice...
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (lots of reading!) claims something's up with the US government and 9/11 (yeah, old news). Bush creating his own Pearl Harbor to further his agenda? Woah.
After thinking about it some more, the WTC tower collapses do look like something out of a demolition documentary, which I've seen a number of.
I'm only going to pick on a couple things here, because i've seen this page before and viewed as a mouthpiece for these individuals to argue a point I feel it fails miserably. A great many of the issues they focus on and bring up, even if accepted as fact, are ambiguous and can be construed in multiple ways. Which isn't to say there aren't valid topics of discussion in the debate they are attempting to have, just that they focus on all the wrong areas, and end up shooting themselves in the foot.
If they really want to raise questions regarding the events of 9/11 they would be smart to take a page out of the book of Bertrand Russell. The most interesting fact this site brings up is that 5 of the 19 supposed hijackers have been found alive. All this shows however is that the story we know and accept about 9/11 isn't entirely correct. It doesn't mean anything more.
If they wanted to try to reinforce their claim to a conspiracy they would be better off focusing on the attack on the pentagon as opposed to the attack on the WTC. There is much more evidence there that could be used to further their agenda. With the video obtained through Judicial Watch many of the questions raised in regards to that aspect of 9/11 are much stronger arguments. Including questions regarding the official response to why there was so little debris from the plane being that it "vaporized" on impact.
Point being, these people may be scholars but they should take a couple more classes on logical inferences and should revise their position so that it's based on the areas with stronger evidence as opposed to stronger emotions.