posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:04 AM
Originally posted by auroraaus
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Thank you for your input and another perspective for me to look from, I do appreciate it.
I don't believe I was going out of my way to "clutch at straws" as you have said. I'm genuinely interested in the variability of information that
is out there and interested in what others have to say, whether they believe 9/11 was an inside job or not.
I was out in the bush on camp and in our cabins we watched live as people jumped to their own deaths before witnessing two seemingly strong towers
collapse, falling and crushing almost everything in their wake.
A couple of years previous I watched an implosion unfold before my eyes... unfortunately the implosion turned out to be an explosion and killed a girl
one year older than myself.
At least with her death, they found more tangible answers... but for me, I "clutch at straws".
I'm not however, having a go at you, just stating my perspective, as I am also taking in your own perspective. Thank you.
You misunderstand me. I'm not here to "have a go with people". I'm here to point out something which conspiracy pundits uniformly overlook.
Regardless of what we saw happen, what we were told happened, and what actually happened, on 9/11 there are two undebatable, clad in armor truths
which cannot be argued-
1) Lots of things happend that day which noone ever saw before, and
2) lots and lots and LOTS of con artists and/or paranoid kooks are conjuring up their own explanation for the things that happened which noone saw
before, either to make a fast buck off us or to get us to become as unreasonably paranoid as they themselves are.
Thus, we see a very large building collapse and characters start imagining they were destroyed by lasers from outer space. We see a plane smack into
a building and people start imagining they're really holograms. And so on and so forth. Knowing that the 9/11 conspiracy movement are populated by
con artists and/or paranoid kooks, the first step to perform true research is to first determine what sources of information can be considered
credible and what probably won't be credible, correct? After all, you're not going to search out a drunk lying in his own urine in a back alley on
Saturday night and ask him for "the truth" on what happened on 9/11 simply because you know he's going to give you an alternative explanation, are