posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:56 AM
Well thank you for your polite invitation.
I'm a lurker. I expect this will be my only post here.
9-11 is huge subject, and by sheer necessity it tends to be debated in its details more than the whole. Most any single aspect of the events of that
day could admit of a variety of explanations, and some of the "debunker" arguments might be acceptable if taken in isolation. If the official story
was generally believable with only a couple of apparently strange anomalies, then I'd be more inclined to accept those explanations.
But, looking at the entire picture, the official story simply does not make any sense whatsoever. There are simply too many implausible things the
official story expects us to believe. It strains credibility.
In any crime investigation, a suspect might have a plausible explanation for some part of the evidence, but taking all the evidence, along with the
test of "means, motive and opportunity", the obvious conclusion that they are lying may be made. And certainly one should not allow the suspect to
investigate his own crime.
In the case of 9-11, we have a huge and astoundingly audacious crime- understandably, many intelligent people will find it impossible to get their
minds around the idea that the deception runs as deep as it does, and so will ease their minds by concentrating on anomalies taken in isolation, and
convincing themselves that the people who are suspicious of the story just simply don't understand the science of that particular detail.
Take a few steps back and look at the whole big picture, and consider the level of control the government has over the media and institutional
science- both overt control and subtle control. The official investigation was highly compartmentalized and carried out by people who were
psychologically uncomfortable with facing the concept of a really huge deception.
edit on 30-9-2012 by seaside sky because: typo