mkp,
Firstly don't be so hard on yourself - you have a right to mistrust government(s), and no-one should blame you for doing so.
I'm not sure what you specifically mean by the alternative media - probably the fact that it sounds so incredibly far fetched that it surely can't be true(similar to Aardvarks argument I responded to) but as you say
"That doesn't mean they weren't." - you see my point.......
I agree with you how closed some peoples minds seem to be on this issue in favour of the official version - for someone that watches the BBC(for example) as their only news source that is understandable.
But like you say, they are the same media source who are reporting Building 7 coming down 20 minutes before it fell, so you have to ask yourself, if they are prepared to lie or distort the truth about one thing, what else are they prepared to lie about ? Ah "conspiracy theory" I hear people say - no that's that's just common sense - in the law courts do we accept testimony from people who have found to be lying under oath ? We most certainly do not and for good reason......
I am glad you are looking at the hard facts - everyone should, and to be fair to AJ, he has repeatedly stated that this is what he does, and anyone who looks into can juge for themselves, by not beleiving him and looking into the claims for themselves.
You say "I haven't seen any solid 100% proof to say they were blown up. "
have you seen these ? (just a few)
Alex Jones at Ground Zero: The Use Of Explosives In the 9/11 Attack
NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs
9/11 explosives, controlled demolition
Whether you think this is 100% proof or not I don't know but maybe there's something there you haven't seen.....
Don't second guess yourself because you are spot on in your analysis:
"To bring a building down that cleanly, takes serious work normally. Making sure all the main supports fail at the same time and that other pieces collapse neatly and in total symmetry, would take real expertise."
I mean, if that isn't enough Larry Silverstein has
admitted the building was "pulled" (the term they use in the industry meaning controlled demolition)
Silverstein, FDNY Decided to 'Pull WTC 7': An In-Depth Analysis
Bear in mind if these so called "conspiracy theories" lack credibility they would have been disproven with science, but instead they are labelled as conspiracy.
Yes if we accept that there was something very evil that occured, then it is unpallatable, but it is the truth I'm afraid, whether we like it or not....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpdavies
LIHO vs MIHO vs Incompetence
None very palatable.
I have to confess, I have to stop my utter distrust of government (thanks to governments being proven to be full of liars and scumbags for most of human history) bluring my judgement on this one.
Just as the MSM sickens me with its bias and obvious manipulation, I see the same sort of thing from the "alternate media" too. They play them at their own game sometimes, using fear of the unknown to push their beleifs and ergo agenda on everyone else.
Sorry, but just as it bamboozles me how closed some peoples minds seem to be on this issue in favour of the official version (IE the one handed to us by our wholesome government and MSM), I also see worrying signs from the other side too. Sorry youcanhandle the truth, but you seem like an Alex Jones "zombie" or "sheep" to me. Instead of following the official line, you seem to be happy to blindly follow the AJ line instead.
I feel a lot of empathy with what AJ and by proxy you say. I think he hits on a lot of issues that need further looking at. However, there is a lot of stating things as fact, that clearly aren't fact, just hypothesis. I understand the urge to balance the official propaganda, but you can look as biased as them at the end of the day, just at the other end of the spectrum.
Thus I have tried to blot out what both sides say on this issue and look at the video and hard facts available.
Doing that, for the main towers, it was strange, but they were big strange buildings and the way they came down was weird. There is a lot of dubiousness and strange questions about them, but at the end of the day, I haven't seen any solid 100% proof to say they were blown up.
That doesn't mean they weren't.
WTC7 on the otherhand is the one that troubles me. Even forgetting about Silversteins dealings, what the building was used for, BBC and CNN reporting it collapsing in advance and all the other odd stuff that happened at the time, just the plain physics of it don't compute for me.
Even if the building was a raging inferno (which it never was compared to other major fires that have happened), even if a massive chunk was taken out of it (which depends on your definition of massive), there simply has not been a decent explanation for the way that building fell. To bring a building down that cleanly, takes serious work normally. Making sure all the main supports fail at the same time and that other pieces collapse neatly and in total symmetry, would take real expertise.
The building does seem to have been "pulled". The fact the MSM have done all in their power not to show this and even talk about it, is worrying for me. The MSM is biased and controlled, simply by controlling the news at source. This is how the MSM managed to almost blot out Ron Paul worldwide, even though he had amazing money support, numbers at rallies and even the odd good result (winning Washington and Alaska for instance).
That is what bothers me. It is a smoking gun, to suggest the official story isn't reliable. If the official story isn't reliable, then what is?
|