Urebiz,
Welcome to the forums. Now I don't mean to be harsh, so just stop me if I am.
You sound like the type of conspiracy theorist that believes this stuff because it's entertaining. First off you told us that if the WTC7 NIST report concludes other than a controlled demolition you'll just become a LIHOPer. Why?
I'm going to ask you something. Do you find conspiracy theories entertaining? I may very well be wrong, but to me it sounds like you're the kind of guy who buys into this stuff because it's not as boring as the official story.
Well yes, you got my Achilles heel there.
I didn't say I would become 100% LIHOPer thought. I said I would still give it 30% credibility since it took so long for the government to complete the investigation. ~6 Years is more than enough to fabricate data and collect fake witnesses reports, as redundant the idea may look like... but since it's a far-fetched hypothesis, I leave it as 30%.
Another reason why I would still believe those 30% is the whole mess at the Osama and Al Qaeda connection. I can't help but wonder if they really revealed their real sources of information to point out a Islamofacist participation.
My hypothesis is, the USG had known from previous sources about the attack, and have then disclosed the information blaming Al Qaeda, within days of the incident. But, they couldn't reveal who handed the information to them, nor could they investigate the funding connections, because whatever that lead to, would end up incriminating people whithin the agencies who knew all of it, beforehand, and were ordered to stay away, or just rerouted to other tasks. So they just left it at that - saying it's speculative evidence. That's an hypothesis to why we still have no hard evidence against Al Qaeda.
I can't say I wouldn't still be wondering if LIHOP was still a possibility, even if the whole case has had been closed through speculative investigation. But that's a low probability overall, so I leave it as 30%. That's my approach.
To sum it up, I would still be considering my government complicity to a mass murder in its own soil because of a far-fetched theory I made up, based on the own government's unwillingness to disclose investigative information, over years, about a terrorist attack. Blame me. I will still consider it, as low as 1% it may get, until they disclose hard evidence, photographic evidence.
So I ask the USG: If you Have the whole Al Qaeda leadership (Osama, and whoever else might be) arrested, in court, reports at hand, testimonies, etc.; then I'll believe it a 110%. But, if you make up lies in public ground, delay information releases, start wars and pass military acts over the tragedy, all done with mostly speculative and classified investigation, then I'll consider a LIHOP, whatever probability it is.
The thing about "entertaining" is, for my defense, a cultural thing from my homeland. The government back there (I won't say where, cuz you'll laugh at me, boo hoo) is far more corrupt than the US Government. Everyone got to the point to blame anything and everything that occurs to the recently elected top officials (yeah, presidents, governors, etc., are al elected there. It's a type of democracy which was duped from the US, only MORE flawed. We have had eletronic voting for years now, also.). And it's not just a funny costume, it's like everyone
knows the government cheats the citizens. The sad thing, is that since it's so well introduced in the community, no one does [rule 8] besides laughing about it. They could make rallies and protest when every other big scandal happens (which is practically twice a year now), but everyone just sit backs and says "well I told you not to trust that guy! He's just as bad as the last one..."
I'm sorry if my attitude is somehow offending to you, I'm sure you are used to penalizing politicians way more than ..."there", so you take it more seriously as well, even rumors and conspiracy theories. I'll try refraining to sound like an ass who doesn't care about you...
There's probably some major holes in the above comment. I'll leave it up to you to find them if there's any... that is, if you care at all. I tried not to, but oh well, there will always be some. I'm done analyzing for now...
On a side note, even thought I hold a more relaxed stance, I always try to be the most nonpartisan I can, even thought I neglect things sometimes (not on purpose of course).
The reason why I'm here it's because you people have the most introspective defending the official story, so I'd like to see how much credit should be given to it under some perspectives I had not seen being asked... I hope I can assimilate all the evidence pointing to the official story, then compilate the (relevant) evidence from the CTs, and try to weight out a percentage. To weight out the opposing factors together is what I want to do... sometime. I'll even consider the circular arguments, as they pose significance in both sides.
It's all for my own comprehension on these curious events...(All my percentages are based on my own perceptions and faith anyway... No one buys my [rule 8]
)
@ Maccy :I've never seen those charts before, they're quite interesting. I'll read over the links you gave me. I'm familiar with the east penthouse collapse, but I can't believe such a brief and seeming ineffective collapse (from outside) could have done any relevant damage to the core columns. If it did, then I'm sure the NIST will investigate (probably over speculation and computer models, but who cares) which columns were severely damaged (and from what floor to another). When such an analysis is done (by the final report), I'll lay my final conclusion...
What sucks is that we can't see what damage did it do to the core columns.. the NIST will have to work HARD to develop any palpable theory to how many columns (and to what extent) were severed by the east penthouse weight (and fires, as we know).
It would be plausible if they also studied what mechanism could have caused the east penthouse to collapse first. If that's going to be the foundation event of the subsequent global collapse, it better be convincing.
[rule 8], this took an awful long time to write.
