Durham Giant wrote:I have to say that i have viewed some of the conspiracy theorist DVDs If anyone wants them FREE just Pm me.
Some of the explanations sound convincing but are too complex technically for me to decide.
I dont know how hot a fire has to get to to buckle steel and make a building collapse bt there are two things which have always confused me which i have never got a satisfactory explanation for.
The first one is the damage to the pentagon which looks more like a rocket than a plane hitting it
and secondly the fact that the TV reported on the same day they had found the passport of one of the hijackerss in the wreckage of the Towers. I cannot believe that one of their passports mysteriously survived the crash, the fire, the collapse, was then picked up by someone on the ground and identified as being a hijacker on 8 hours
Look, I'm all for people doing their own research on this issue. But there's time spent positively and time vexed into the sewer.
Highly complex and technical questions such as whether the debris field and damage spread are consistent with a missle strike or a commercial airliner, or whether tiny puffs of smoke ejected from the WTC indicate the presence of explosives or pancaking of the internal superstructure weakened by collision and burning aviation fuel are interesting but ultimately best left to the experts. I agree that there are some unanswered questions - but it's going to take something pretty special to cause me to doubt the forensic examinations, which, by and large, were one of the few parts of the investigation which were handled well.
Why people choose to get bogged down with this stuff baffles me because even simple events, viewed retrospectively through the testimonies of more than one witness, can, via a process of fractal-like recursive magnification, generate any number of weird and very often difficult to explain phenomena. Invariably you end up talking probabilities rather than truths.
The endless investigations into the assassination of John F. Kennedy highlights the folly of getting involved in technical debates such as these. For years there has been a running battle between those people who claim Oswald could and did pull the trigger for the fatal shot and those who say it came from the "Grassy Knoll". A couple of years ago the BBC made a big play of "scientific proofs" it had discovered which put the question beyond all doubt. Expensive, cutting edge CGI coalesced with dizzying ballistics, drag co-efficients and so forth to ultimately rule out a frontal shot (and thus any conspiracy). The final scene was of the host and his collection of boffins toasting the wonders of modern science. To the uninitiated this must have seemed all very convincing and I'm sure there are very many today who, on the strength of it, are happy to agree with the Warren Commission's findings.
Unfortunately, the programme (for reasons I'd love to know) forgot to mention the more than insignificant fact that the best part of a dozen doctors, surgeons, coroners etc. (many of whom were experts in the treatment of gunshot wounds - this is Texas after all) at Parkland Hospital were adamant that the tiny hole in Kennedy's forehead was unmistakably an entry wound. Moreover, they later expressed complete amazement when the Warren Commission's own autopsy photos (taken later after the body had been illegally moved to the privacy of Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington) appeared to show that entry and exit wounds had mysteriously exchanged places.
Returning to 9/11, for me there are far better avenues for investigation - many of which trace to the 9/11 Commission itself (something that Bush had literally to be bullied into), which at times seemed astonishingly unwilling to pursue the facts. Mind you, this isn't surprising when you consider that it was handled by the same cadre that gave Reagan and George H.W. Bush a free ride on the Iran-Contra scandal.
On the general question of conspiracy - my feelings are best summed up by the American political commentator and historian, Walter Karp (who knew a thing or two about power):
"When it can be established that a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result the presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown, in addition, that the actors have an interest in producing these results the presumptions become a fair certainty. No conspiracy theory is required. On the other hand, those who make blanket condemnations of conspiracy theories base their own view on a far fetched theory indeed, namely that whatever those in high office actually do they are essentially men of good will. According to this school of special pleading, the "King can do no wrong" doctrine, suitably updated, it is entirely proper to praise an American President for skillfully engineering some desirable result. But to ascribe to him the same skillful engineering of an indefensible one is to fall victim to political paranoia and conspiratorial fetishm."
