posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:40 AM
I agree with argentus, why would the planes need to be switched? I do find it interesting how the Canadian filmmakers were actually filming the
targets and not the planes or former impact site on the WTC but this surely is not definitive proof of anything.
As far as the planes being switched, this seems to only complicate the whole scheme and it makes it sound less credible. It's things like this that
turn people off to the notion that the official conspiracy theory is probably false.
Why not just stick to the facts, instead of theorizing about what actually happened? I'm afraid it's this kind of theorizing that turns people away
from looking at reality when it comes to the events of 9/11. You see, in order for people to break away from the accepted "norm" and believe an
alternative theory about anything, they have to be involved in the question & answer process. They either have to come up with the question on their
own, or they have to come up with the answer on their own.
We can't provide both the question and the answer to that question and expect to influence peoples' thinking on any particular issue. When we ask
the questions for people and then proceed to answer these questions for them, these people are going to be less inclined to pay attention, hold
interest and/or believe. Since it is much more difficult to inspire people to exercise their critical self thinking skills (or lack there of) in an
effort to ask the right questions, it would then be wise of us to only ask the questions, by presenting the factual evidence and then let the people
come up with their own answers to this factual evidence, provided that we present only the factual evidence and not attempt to provide conjecture.
Generally speaking, people are already participating in the question & answer process when they start to ask the necessary questions. This isn't so
for the majority of people who aren't asking the questions, so to provide questions and answers to this majority of people, would hardly do any good
and that is exactly what we are doing when we try to theorize or speculate about the broad possible scenarios that could have taken place on September
11, 2001. After all, we do have solid proof about what didn't happen on that day while our evidence about what actually did happen is less accurate
or obvious. Our burden of proof is much easier to meet, when the focus is much smaller and that focus becomes much smaller when we prove what didn't
happen, as opposed to what did.
Some may argue that this theorizing about what happened on that day, instead of theorizing about what didn't happen, is strictly for the people who
already have questions and are seeking answers. This theorizing is not for the people who are "still sleeping" so to speak, is what many would say.
My answer to that, is that our main priority should be to raise awareness and educate people on the falsities of the official conspiracy theory so
that the people demand a new investigation. After all, that is our goal isn't it?
If we could provide the questions to the public by presenting the evidence, minus any theories about what may have occurred as not to both ask the
questions and answer those same questions, we may be more successful at raising awareness. If we can raise awareness, action can be taken to seek
justice in an effort to make sure that something like this is a lot less likely to happen in the future. Just my two cents...