Originally Posted by CptFarlow
For the record, you can now post links -- the mods
here make people go 15 posts to cut down on the spambots, but you're at 18 now.
I hope you stick around -- you seem to be among the more openminded of the crowd that's come over here from Loose Screws or whatever it is.
In case you don't, here's a couple of parting thoughts I hope you'll carry with you.
First, be assured that investigations have been done and continue to be done. It's not on the front page of the Times
and it's certainly not on the conspiracy sites, but construction-types have been extremely curious about precisely what brought down the towers and 7 WTC and are engaged in vigorous debate about engineering principles, materials research, fireproofing methods, etc. For just one example, do a Google search on Hassan Astaneh. You might be relieved that the CTers are lying to you about the amount of investigation done.
Second, consider the blatent lies told to you by the CTers. Why do they intentionally and maliciously twist Bill Manning's serious and thoughtful concerns about building safety codes into a conspiracy theory he personally does not believe in? Why do they intentionally and maliciously misrepresent Van Romero's comments? Why do some of them continue to lie to you about that "tarp" when it's painfully obvious based on other pictures that it is a service tent? Why do people call Jeff King an "MIT Engineer/Research Scientist" when he doesn't appear on MIT's faculty weblisting? Look into these guys. See what other things they believe. At least one of them believes that the entire income tax system is illegal. For many of them, 9-11 is just one in a litany of things they want to blame on a shadow government. These people hate the government, they want you to hate the government and they don't have any scruples whatsoever about what it takes to get you there.
Third, consider where the burden of proof lies. Use a touch of common sense when you weigh claims like that the wife of the Soliciter General of the United States was landed in Cleveland and spirited off to parts unknown as part of a government plot or that a plane which was seen by thousands or tens of thousands or (in the case of the really out-there CTers) a billion people wasn't really a plane. When you hear these claims, imagine yourself on a jury and it's a defense attorney telling you the story. "My client didn't do it -- the cop who arrested him with the stolen goods, the victim who identified him, the DNA lab, the phone company which traced the calls from the cell phone he allegedly stole, they're all lying. It's really a massive government plot to make people want to hire more police officers." What would it take for you to acquit that lawyer's client? What would it take if it were proven to you that his attorney had lied about the case over and over and over again?