Don > how do I move that opinion from the opinion category into the fact category without getting bogged down in an endless list of, yeah, but's
While people, generally, suffer from cognitive dissonance that won't be possible. Thus it is simply not possible for most Americans to bring themselves to accept that the government which they trust was behind this dastardly crime. And, unfortunately, there is no logic or argument that is so compelling that people have no choice but to accept it. Emotion and not reason will prevail. The fundamental truth is that people believe what they want to believe -- and that includes us.
> If you'll pardon my having used you as a sounding board to demonstrate just how quickly the argument digresses into ambiguity, I think you can see how difficult it is to support without falling back on unsupportable speculation.
Yes, I understood that you had some reason for keeping me so busy telling you what you already know. Apropos ambiguity, it all depends on how one interprets what one is looking at. The problem is not in the eyes but the brain. This is a picture of a skyskraper on fire....
911research.wtc7.net
....and this is a picture of one of the Towers of the WTC exploding.
911research.wtc7.net
My eyes tell me that these pictures are entirely different and that an explosion is not a fire. But if people choose to believe it is, there's nothing I can do about it. And it's not speculation to see an explosion as an explosion, even if the government says it's a fire. It's just a matter of believing in one's own judgement. I suppose one could call it self-confidence.
> The sad fact of the matter is the vast majority of Americans have endlessly viewed the same evidence as we're discussing, and currently believe the entire event may be accounted for by gravity and fire alone.
The perpetrators of the crime know that and that's why they did it because they knew they could get away with it. Likewise, the whole bin Laden/al Qaeda fairy tale.
> the first step is to demonstrate something people haven't seen before, and to show there is no alternative explanation for its existence other than explosives.
I think I've made my point which is there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. There is no satisfactory explanation for what happened to the WTC Towers on 911 other than they were demolished with explosives but it seems Americans, generally, cannot bring themselves to accept it. This is a psychological phenomenon, not a scientific or philosophical one. It is not possible to make an explosion appear any more like an explosion than it already is in order to convince people who won't believe it is an explosion in the first place.
dmu.ac.uk
> why it is evidence of an explosion, and that doesn't immediately get picked apart on cross examination
These points come to mind:
The blast which was felt by many people, even in helicopters, and which preceded the collapse of each Tower,
the voluminous quantity of dust and not of ordinary dust particles but microscopic ones,
the heat which accompanied the dust and which propelled the dust as a wave and at considerable speed,
the steel fragments in the debris, including big pieces, which were thrown large distances from the buildings,
the molten residue in the basement which persisted for weeks afterwards,
the seismic data 2.1-2.3 on the Richter which preceded the dissolution of each WTC Tower,
the rate of disintegration of the building at the theoretical rate it would have fallen under gravity,
the substantial lack of solid debris other than steel fragments showing the buildings had actually disintegrated.
And I'm sure there are others. |
