posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:42 PM
Your reasoning is flawed. You have created what is known as a false dichotomy, wherein you limit the possible responses to to an issue to an
either/or answer, denying any other possibilities.
You claim that a person either believes the official story, or disbelieves it. Not so. I do neither. I don't have enough credible information to
make a rational decision on this issue. That puts me in a third group, those who admit that they don't know. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid
Your short anecdote about the boy accused of stealing is flawed. An innocent boy might very well refuse to empty his pockets, on the grounds that
since he has done nothing wrong, he should not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. We have a Constitutional guarantee against such
searches. Asserting this right is not evidence of guilt, but a refusal to participate in what could be a "fishing expedition" or someone trying to
deny you the rights you are guaranteed.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant. After 9/11, an investigation was conducted to try to determine who was responsible and how they did
it. Answers were provided. To some, these answers were unsatisfactory. Now it is up to those dissatisfied people to show why the answers weren't
sufficient, to show that there was some problem with them. Just as the non-believers are unable to provide full answers, neither are the
investigators. Even if there is some grand conspiracy, the investigators were almost certainly not a part of it. If there were a conspiracy, these
investigators were no doubt fed carefully selected facts that would lead to the desired - mistaken - conclusion.
If the government (or some faction of the government) is completely innocent, it has no way to prove this, any more than you could prove that you had
nothing to do with it. Any more than I could prove I was uninvolved. Obviously I wasn't on the planes, but... how could I ever prove that I didn't
have a hand in the planning I can't. So the mere fact that the government couldn't prove its innocence, is not evidence of its guilt.
Your comments about the flu are not well-reasoned, either. First of all, the immunity to prosecution applies to the vaccine manufacturers. Without
it, they would rightly refuse to make vaccine in the time given to them, because that time doesn't allow for proper testing. The immunity absolves
*them* of liability; it does not mean that people who are injured by the vaccine have no recourse. The Federal Government is still liable.
The "public hysteria" of which you speak applies to the hysteria over the vaccination. All medical treatment carries risk. What you need to do is
to balance the risk of vaccination against the risk of the disease itself. Vaccination has shown to be far less risky than flu, even during the
normal flu season. Around 36,000 people die of flu in the US each year. Some hundreds die as a result of the vaccine.
During the "Swine flu" scare of 1976, some 46 million people took the vaccine. Of that number, some few thousands had adverse reactions, most
notably Guillaine-Barre syndrome. This is a serious neurological disease that killed about 300 people. Survivors had serious problems, weakness and
paralysis that in some cases did not resolve over time. The vast majority of people *did* recover, however. So even with the unusually high
percentage of adverse reactions to the vaccine, the incidence of injury was about 1 in 15,000; the incidence of fatalities was less than 1 in
There won't be enough vaccine to go around, according to the manufacturers. Probably health care workers and first responders will receive the
vaccine first; possibly other public workers such as teachers and public transportation workers, municipal workers, etc. There will probably not be
any sort of mandatory vaccination for the general public.
Your comment about the "astronomical odds" of the attack are unfounded. The targets that were hit are obviously attractive ones. There aren't
that many juicy targets where you could kill a whole lot of people and strike a serious blow against the US. The WTC would be high on any list; so
would the Pentagon, White House, Golden Gate Bridge, Statue of Liberty, etc. But the WTC would be the #1 juiciest target, since you'd not only kill
thousands of people, you'd destroy an icon of America, and severely impact its financial heart.
The odds of hitting the correct wing of the Pentagon were not excessive. They were 1 in 5.
As for the buildings that fell down onto themselves, in their own footprint - it may be true that this has not happened before or since. However, I
ask you - how many buildings have been struck by jets fully loaded with fuel? That hasn't happened before or since, either. We really don't know
what would happen to such a building. One can guess that it wouldn't collapse in just that way, but we're guessing. We have insufficient data to
say how - or even whether - the buildings would collapse.
You claim that it's "obvious" that fire couldn't account for molten metal under WTC, weeks after the attack. It's not at all obvious. For one
thing, aluminum melts quite easily, and could easily account for the molten metal. I am told that jet fuel wouldn't be enough to melt steel, but...
we are dealing with a situation we've never encountered before. It is not impossible that the fire created its own updraft, allowing enough oxygen
to reach the fuel to give it unusual heat.
Conclusion? We don't know enough to form a solid conclusion. Most of the "suspicious" facts are based on assumptions and guesses. Scientists
have no data about this type of building hit by a jet. We, the general public, have far less information, and fewer tools with which to analyze the
data. In particular, things that look suspicious to us often are simply the way things are done, or how materials react.