reply to post by EvilAxis
Actually, you're 180 degrees wrong. My point is, again, this: if you discredit Renzi then you must apply the same logic to WR. It's really that
IMO, the argument has more "nuance” to it only because it has to. Meaning, you want to discredit Renzi but, do not want to apply the same standards
Here is the part that might shock you: I think Renzi is discredited, and rightfully so. WR is held up as one of the key witnesses by the “truth
movement”. He has changed his opinion many, many times in an effort to keep himself in the center of the spotlight. He has had ample opportunity to
make his claims in public forums with links that I have provided that disclose his entire statement
and yet he makes no
mention of his
bomb claims. Not a one.
You mention that his testimony was not incorporated – it was. He was called to testify in front of the NIST in 2004. Again, he makes no
(none) of any alleged bombs. In fact, when he's not in front of a truther he has claimed, numerous times, he agrees with the NIST
When talking to Alex Jones, or being paid to speak abroad, he makes steadfast assertions that he knows there were bombs in play. As his own boss is on
the record, again the link was provided, saying WR was with him
during the attack and would have no way
of knowing what was going on.
Furthur, his own boss disputes most of what WR now claims; specifically the “explosion” a split second before the plane hit. WR was in the B4
basement, which has no windows and WR would have no way of knowing the building was under attack, nor did they feel anything. They heard a rumble but
yet, WR is convinced this rumble was before
the plane hit. Again, he was in a windowless basement sub-level. How would he know a plane was
flying at, or into the building? His won boss, who was physically with him, refutes his bombs claims and states they had no idea what the rumble was
– none. Can you follow that?
The fact that Mark Roberts did a lot of the research for what I provided means........nothing unless you don't like what he has to say. I note that
truthers positively hate Roberts, but at the same time not even Alex Jones will debate him. Why? Because he runs circles around truthers and their
So, I am glad we agree.
I agree with you that Renzi is a clown and anything he has to say about 9-11 should be looked upon with a jaded eye. His credibility is strained, to
say the least. We also agree that WR's credibility is in serious question concerning bombs in the WTC(s) due to his numerous, well documented about
faces on this issue, correct?
Or, are you going to further split a small hair and claim because he acted as a hero (no doubt about that) that overrides anything else he's done
I know you see my point. I also know here is virtually no chance you will admit the obvious logic flaw. And that, my friend, was my point all along.
The “truth movement” is it's own worst enemy, by and large. Intellectual dishonesty is the mantra the “truth movement” lives by, IMO. The
fact that the movement gives absolutely zero ground, no matter how absurd the claim, far-fetched the idea or how twisted the logic – to an observer
– indicates just how shoddy the foundation is. They can't give any ground because if you give ground on WR, then you have to question his claims,
which brings the whole bomb issue into question, which bring into question.............and so on.
This is just my opinion but based on the reaction(s), I hit pretty close to the bullseye. After all, if I was so completely wrong, and obviously so,
you wouldn't feel the need to refute me.
One last thing: you see it as rambling, I see it as trying to take you seriously and give you complete thoughts. I'm not engaging you to waste your
time. I write so much because one thing I have learned about the truth argument: if you don't say it, those opposed to you will insinuate you did.
So, you have to go to exaggerated lengths to make your point.
Not picking on you, but you did it too. You read a lot into what I was saying, made a charge of slander and demanded an answer. Just ask me for
clarification next time.
Further, if you don't agree with me, that's great! I think your opinion is valid and most likely well-thought out. However, to claim there is no
evidence that WR is prone to drastic changes in his story, places himself in spots he wasn't and makes factual claims that he can't possibly know
about is...........not being open.
You may say all of that - to you - doesn't matter and I think that's okay. You may think that his heroic actions that day outweigh anything he may
have slipped up on since. That's totally your prerogative but, to say there is no evidence he has shown a real willingness to whore the spotlight and
make increasingly grand claims to keep himself in the spotlight is sticking your head in the sand, IMO.
[edit on 27-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]