What purpose is achieved by insulting someone who may well be making an honest effort to understand 9/11? Why not simply help the poster improve his or her knowledge of 9/11?
A few points:
1. With regard to the alleged explosions which preceded the impact of the alleged planes and which were reported by William Rodriguez -- what was that all about? A mistake?
2. Could the towers have been brought down by an advanced and classified military technology, and not conventional demolition explosives?
3. Were the towers prewired with conventional demolition explosives, according to some kind of classified official policy? One attempt had already been made to bring down one of the towers in 1993 -- other attempts were no doubt expected. Plans were probably in place to bring down the towers in a controlled way in case of terrorist attacks.
Bill Giltner <bill.giltner@gmail.com> wrote:
Sean,
I'm going to cooperate with the "respect your fellow posters" request you've
made as much as I can...
In reference to "MrOsario's" post, I didn't think it deserved a response.
I think the post was, seriously, a funny joke: Someone who had some reason
to waste our time.
In any case, since you replied, I want to provide a "real" reply.
I respect your question: "test of common sense." However even though I
agree with the gist of your reply, I think "common sense" is way too loose
of a precept or concept of logic to apply here. To me, the likelihood of
the truth of 9/11 using a test of common sense is only possible if one has
key facts at hand, and even with those key facts, I have to say, I have to
keep on challenging my preconceptions to try to allow for the real truth.
As an aside, when we watch a magician, we see things that "test our common
sense". It's only through being shown how our own intuitions mislead us at
times, that we comprehend how we've been tricked.
So, let me get to my points:
Point 1: When one watches the towers coming down, one clearly sees the
charges going off from the top down. The idea that those charges could have
been planted by Firemen on the top floors of the towers is absurd.
The originally poster is either:
A) ignorant of what the video evidence shows
Or
B) believes his audience will be ignorant of what the video evidence shows
I believe the above is only common sense if one has taken the time to study
the demolitions.
Of course there are many other reasons to consider the poster the most crude
of hooey generators:
Point 2: The physics of the crash and fires don't imply any kind of massive
failure of the tower structures. There's no reason to think they would fall
topple, or suffer any kind of structural failure.
Point 3: There is strong evidence pointing to bombs going off prior to the
collapse. The idea of these events happening in a way consistent with the
posters logic, especially the bombs in the basement is totally suspect.
What your really have here is some Joe that takes us for a fool, or is one
himself.
-------Original Message-------
From: Sean McBride
Date: 03/27/06 21:36:08
To: political-research@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [political-research] Personal Attacks on Those Who Disagree
with the No-Planes Theory
If the towers were under threat of falling sideways from the impact of the
hijacked planes, then why conceal an operation to force them to fall
straight downwards? Why the necessity for secrecy?
Also, wouldn't some of the firefighters have spoken up about the operation
by now?
Does this scenario pass the test of common sense?
MrOsario <mrosario@rgv.rr.com> wrote:
The Twin Towers were to fall sideway and have a domino effect on the other
buildings thereby
Killing around 140,000. So the decision was made to send in 200 firemen with
bombs to set them
At strategic places so that the towers would fall the way a building is
supposed to fall when it
Is being demolished.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean McBride
To: political-research
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: [political-research] Personal Attacks on Those Who Disagree with
the No-Planes Theory
Sorry -- I am not interested in posting any more of that material. I find it
extremely destructive for the overall effort to uncover the truth about 9/11
The people who have come under attack over this issue rank among the best
minds in the 9/11 research community. The personal attacks are disgusting
and despicable, and I find it incomprehensible why they keep coming.
I am still very interested in any fresh and useful information, analysis or
theories about how the towers fell that is expressed in a succinct,
reasonable and civil way, and which isn't designed to stir up division and
hatred among serious 9/11 researchers.
Morgan Reynolds just published some remarks on this controversy which are
quite interesting. That's how to do it.
Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/
Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo
com/group/political-research/rss
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "political-research" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
political-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "political-research" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
political-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/
Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "political-research" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
political-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
No comments:
Post a Comment