posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:07 AM
Originally posted by facchino
Pentagon - all CCTV footage seized in minutes. No amount of argument can explain this, simply because if it was a plane why hide all images of it
The problem is that if we want to be at least what I consider, to be genuinely scientifically minded, we cannot directly assume from the above, as a
single element, that the official story concerning the Pentagon was definitely not true. This is the point which the arbitrary skeptics catch us
The real issue, however, is that it raises questions
; questions which would not exist of the CCTV footage were available. That is the
real problem with 9/11. You have a very large number of irregularities, inconsistencies, and things which are very strange; and if you put those
together with the available, known characteristics of nano-thermite, as one example, and a broader historical context about geopolitics and warfare,
which includes knowledge of false flag attacks as a standard modus operandi, then that is when the picture begins to emerge.
One of my main personal criteria for the proveability of something, is whether or not it can be reliably used in the production of further objects;
whether ideas or whatever. There has to be some sort of relation to other things, both forward and backward. You do not have that with the official
story. There are far too many details which are not consistent with the official story.
The arbitrary skeptics apparently get caught up in thinking that they can debunk the entire group of people who are asking questions, on the basis of
a minority who suggested such things as remote controlled planes and holograms.
I do not believe in remote controlled planes or holograms here, because I have seen no evidence for them. I do not believe in the official
account, because I have not seen sufficient evidence for it; or more specifically, there are too many details which are overlooked by the official
account, which do not fit into it. I do believe in controlled demolition, because I have seen what to me, constitutes good evidence for
That is the bottom line.