Disregard the Pictures-- Again
It seems I have forgotten my old rule.
Of course, pictures are fun to look at, but they are a dangerous trap-- because they can be very misleading-- they are subject to personal interpretation as well as alteration.
This issue is also another thing Mike Ruppert gets right. He stays away from pictures and physical evidence. This is why he gets slammed by some people, like Dave McGowan, who like to rely on photographic ("physical") evidence. Ruppert even avoids talking about the WTC collapse-- and this may be wise.
The fact is, although it looks as though the WTC was blown up, and there are reports that bombs were going off on 9/11-- we can't prove anything this way. I tend to believe the WTC was blown up-- but I can't be 100% sure of this either. The point is, no one is ever going to prove anything in court looking at pictures of the WTC collapse. We need rock-solid evidence or eye-witness testimony of explosives being used.
Really, the best arguments that show 9/11 was an inside job don't rely on pictures-- they just rely on logic.
I don't mean to takethe fun out of speculation either. It is fine to speculate and make theories. However, ultimately, this is a serious business where we want to be able to convince people what happened and thus we need hard evidence.
I still think the single most damning evidence overall that 9/11 was an inside job was Ruppert's finding that on 9/11 NORAD was running a live-fly hijacking drill. The second most damning evidence what the story that was printed in USA Today that said that before 9/11 NORAD had run exercises simulating hijacked planes crashing into buildings. These findings basically speak for themselves-- because they contradict so much of what administration officials said.
Of course there are lots of other things that cast doubt on the official story-- and together these things absolutely convince me 9/11 was an inside job. Just the two facts I mention above are the most compelling 9/11 skeptic items, in my opinion.
My new rule of thumb for analyzing 9/11 is to not spend any time on arguments that involve pictures of planes or the holes they made in buildings.
There is plenty of other data to work with that draws skepticism to the official 9/11 story. Wondering about what sort of planes hit the WTC or what hit the Pentagon is a waste of time.
The only exceptions to my new "no pictures" rule are:
1) data that suggest flight 93 was shot down, and
2) pictures of the WTC buildings collapsing.
Of course, pictures are fun to look at, but they are a dangerous trap-- because they can be very misleading-- they are subject to personal interpretation as well as alteration.
This issue is also another thing Mike Ruppert gets right. He stays away from pictures and physical evidence. This is why he gets slammed by some people, like Dave McGowan, who like to rely on photographic ("physical") evidence. Ruppert even avoids talking about the WTC collapse-- and this may be wise.
The fact is, although it looks as though the WTC was blown up, and there are reports that bombs were going off on 9/11-- we can't prove anything this way. I tend to believe the WTC was blown up-- but I can't be 100% sure of this either. The point is, no one is ever going to prove anything in court looking at pictures of the WTC collapse. We need rock-solid evidence or eye-witness testimony of explosives being used.
Really, the best arguments that show 9/11 was an inside job don't rely on pictures-- they just rely on logic.
I don't mean to takethe fun out of speculation either. It is fine to speculate and make theories. However, ultimately, this is a serious business where we want to be able to convince people what happened and thus we need hard evidence.
I still think the single most damning evidence overall that 9/11 was an inside job was Ruppert's finding that on 9/11 NORAD was running a live-fly hijacking drill. The second most damning evidence what the story that was printed in USA Today that said that before 9/11 NORAD had run exercises simulating hijacked planes crashing into buildings. These findings basically speak for themselves-- because they contradict so much of what administration officials said.
Of course there are lots of other things that cast doubt on the official story-- and together these things absolutely convince me 9/11 was an inside job. Just the two facts I mention above are the most compelling 9/11 skeptic items, in my opinion.
posted by spooked at 10:43 PM
1 Comments:
I think logic says that the PTB needed a new "commie" to keep the war machine moving along and wha la - OBL and spooky ghost like terraists. I like to think it's like the Cold War...sort of for a good cause but I don't remember bloody invasions and occupations so I believe its much much worse...not even Viet Nam comparisons work very well. Bah!
Post a Comment
<< Home