"Dave you seem like a pretty level headed guy have you ever had any personal doubts about some of the official account of 9/11?"
"Having heard the conspiracy theories, I started out from a presumption of doubt about the whole thing. On looking at, and evaluating, the evidence, the overwhelming majority of that doubt vanished extremely quickly. I would agree with some people that there is a possibility that some of the US security services may have had a somewhat less vague idea of what was in store than they admit to, but the evidence merely doesn't exclude that possibility; it certainly doesn't positively support it, and tends on balance to argue against it."
"Curious as to whether people ever fluctuate from one side to another here or if its generally black and white for most."
"Not much room for doubt on WTC7, frankly. The idea of deliberately demolishing a building nobody's ever heard of, and explaining it away as a consequence of a pair of prior building collapses that have been shown far, far beyond reasonable doubt to have been entirely unexpected in the light of what was known just before the occurred, is so far-fetched, pointless and personally dangerous to the people planning it as to be an utterly insane proposition. Truthers like to obscure that overview by focusing on the finest possible details, like the ever-popular 2.25 seconds of freefall; but if you look at the collapse of WTC7 in the context of the other events of the day, all of which have been proven time after time to have been consequences of the attacks by al-Qaeda, no CD theory even begins to offer the vaguest possibility of ever making sense. Dave"
The old incredulity argument.
You don't examine with incredulity what happened to WTC7, but instead make your judgement based on the incredulity of why it happened to WTC7.
And based on that personal incredulity that, duh, why would they destroy a building that I, Dave Rogers never heard of, you have the mendacity to conclude there is little room for doubt.
The proverbial cart before the horse.
That because you couldn't fathom the why, there was little doubt that the collapse could have been deliberately planned.
Personally I examined what happened, before I considered why it happened. You know, the horse before the cart.
Now I have to agree with you on one point.
The collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, was;
"...far beyond reasonable doubt to have been entirely unexpected..." Your language there was a bit confusing, so let me be clear that I believe you are saying those collapses were highly unexpected.
Your logic appears to have a big gap. Does it not stand to reason, that if WTC7 was deliberately demolished (an inside job), that the
"entirely unexpected in the light of what was known" collapse of the WTC Twin Towers was also a deliberate demolition (an inside job)? Not an unexpected double-fluke resulting from aircraft impacts.
Aircraft impacts built into the design of the buildings. Yeah yeah, I hear the rebuttal cut 'n pasting in the background, but that has been argued ad nauseam before. The Official Story supporters incredibly dumb argument that, yes the structural engineers planned for a Boeing 707 impact but, duh, it never occurred to them to consider that the aviation fuel might catch fire.
I fail to see how it was
"...pointless and personally dangerous to the people planning it as to be an utterly insane proposition...", given the whole site was virtually destroyed, combined with all the ancillary damage to perimeter buildings, and the shock 'n awe to the American public. With the mass media and Bush quickly on board, the danger, at that moment in time, was
zero.
And Dave, how has your personality incredulity as to the "why would they do it", made you so brain dead about the significance of a 47 storey, modern office building, covering a football field area,
dropping totally unsupported for 2.25 seconds?
Yeah, yeah thermal expansion..on all 3 WTC towers no less, who knew?
Well science has known about the thermal expansion of steel for a mucho length of time amigo. This is old news. After seven long years, the NIST, no doubt from watching the clock, and with growing desperation, grasped that straw. To do so, they had to ignore and make believe a number of things (insufficient fire and no shear studs for example).
Anyway, you blithely accept the Al Qaeda did it all rhetoric, hook, line and sinker, as being proven beyond doubt.
I'd like some of what you are smoking.
MM
