I Got A “Gut Feeling” Too…
And my gut is telling me that Bush is low in the polls and not looking like that’s gonna change any time soon, my gut is telling me that the surge is not working and that violence in Iraq is not abating, my gut is telling me the GoP is gonna be hurt by masseuse visiting Republican senators, and my gut is telling me that Bush needs to do something about all that.
And the media is playing along
* Officials fear summer terror attack
* Chertoff says U.S. at al-Qaida risk
* Summertime terror attack warnings
* Officials worry of summer terror attack
I am reminded of televangelist Pat Robertson saying he was gonna pray away a hurricane — this is another win/win of the same nature.
If there is not terrorist attack the Bush administration will say they prevented it from happening, and if there is an attack they will say that the American people were warned it could happen, and probably blame the bleeding heart liberals who didn’t want them torturing information out of suspects in secret jails.
Take some Pepto for your gut Mr. Chertoff, like the administration you work for, your credibility is worth little.
——-
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Webloggin, Planck’s Constant, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Right Voices, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Another terrorist attack depends entirely on the Bush administration anyway. After all, they were behind the first one.
Sorry Adrian, not taking that bait.
SL, so we now go from the colour coded alert to the gut feeling alert. That Homeland Security stuff is really deep isn’t it? It inspires such confidence. /sarcasm
I don’t know about bait… it’s mainstream opinion the Bush administration is behind 9/11. In fact those who still believe it was bin Laden are pretty much the ones in the conspiracy theory camp.
Sorry Adrian, we have had several lively discussions around here on the topic of who was responsible for 9-11. You will have to excuse me if I find your suggestion that those who believe Al Qaeda was behind 9-11 are somehow in the conspiracy camp and not part of the “mainstream”, as you put it, as being your opinion. An opinion I might add that I find foolish.
Homeland Security is fulfilling its’ mandate treehugger - keep the people afraid, a fearful and distracted population is so much easier to control than a thinking one.
I agree with that, Stageleft. At the same time, I think the suggestion that the Bush Administration engineered 9/11 is silly.
Richard Nixon was forced to resign because his administration was unable their connection with a small burglary at the Watergate Hotel. Anyone who thinks the Bush Administration could pull off a conspiracy on that scale and keep it concealed after six years of media scrutiny has clearly never worked for the government.
Whats that age-old question? Something along the lines of “who stands to gain from this?”
-Tens, nay HUNDREDS of billions of dollars in “defense” spending.
-Steady erosion of civil rights and freedoms.
-Attacking Iraq for “oil-security”.
-Arbitrary distribution of reconstruction and service contracts (Haliburton).
-Control of populace through fear and gut-feeling terror warnings. (You said it yourself SL)
-Potential “Permanent Republican Majority”
-Distracting populace from increasingly conservative and elitist social policies.
Just like it is widely believed that the military-industrial complex that we were warned about was complicit in JFK’s death, more and more people are seeing 9/11 as an excuse for certain Cabals to do certain things.
There is a troubling trend for people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job to be dismissed as crackpots and conspiracy theorists. When does a view of a certain event move from the much-dismissed and villfied realm of “conspiracy theory” into the realm of the plausible?
I know, I know, I’m another crackpot. But to think that certain elements of the Bush Administration and the Military Industrial complex “just wouldn’t do that” or “couldn’t possibly get away with it” gives them, respectively, too much credit and too little credit.
Never underestimate Dick Cheney.
The problem with all conspiracy theories, Throbbin, is that they string together a series of so-called unanswered questions that MUST together equal a credible theory with little or no facts to back to back them up. The “9-11 was perpetrated by Bush & co” argument is no different in that respect and even more puzzling considering the amount factual evidence against the idea.
“There is a troubling trend for people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job to be dismissed as crackpots and conspiracy theorists.”
Well, they ARE conspiracy theorists. They are theorizing a conspiracy, and one of a complexity and level of secrecy never before achieved in the entire history of humankind.
” When does a view of a certain event move from the much-dismissed and villfied realm of “conspiracy theory†into the realm of the plausible?”
I would say when the theory offers a more complete, compelling, and (remember Occam’s razor) parsimonious explanation of events as we know them than the closest “best theory”.
Our knowledge of every historical event is incomplete, based on surmise, memory, reconstruction, observation, and other forms of direct and indirect evidence. EVERY historical account contains puzzles and anomalies. The question is: do those anomalies invalidate the main narrative? Is there another possible narrative that is more probable, gives rise to fewer anomalies, and accounts in a more satisfactory way for what we do know?
The alternative “theories” I’ve read regarding 9/11 focus on a relatively few anomalies, and fail (in my opinion) to provide anything even resembling a coherent alternative narrative. And as I said before, to believe that (to cite all the popular figures in these theories) the Bush Administration, the NSA, the CIA, the Air Force, the owners of the World Trade Centre, and several thousand conspirators could actually keep the lid on a plot of this scale…for six years…with the most aggressive press corps in the world digging for dirt on what would, if true, be the story of the millenium…nah. Don’t buy it.
Well
Whooee! I reckon maybe the story of the century might be the tale of how the world’s greatest democracy transformed into a police state with the willing consent of a fearful populace.
That won’t be big enough fer the comin’ millenium. The story’ll be how Earth became uninhabitable and humans nearly went extinct on accounta climate change and radiation poisoning. Mutant bloggers in 2999 will post their choices fer Story of the Millenium to their interstellar blogs from their space station homes.
JB
Treehugger - Unanswered questions alone do not automatically create a believable series of events or intent, I agree. However, if answers are sought, and the people who know the answers refuse to give the information, citing Executive privilege, national security, bad memory, etc. etc. one begins to get suspicious. When the 9/11 commission conducts a “thorough investigation”, but is a purely partisan body and releases incomplete or blacked-out report, one gets suspicious.
Much of the factual evidence supporting the official version of events is selective. One can only speculate as to why building 7 went down, and the fact that no one will talk openly about it tells me that there is something to hide. We have all seen the videos.
The concerted effort to revise terrorists from Saudi Arabia as terrorists from Iraq makes me suspicious. George Bush’s reaction reading the upside down goat-book makes me suspicious. So many things about it make me suspicious - which then makes me ask “who stands to gain”? The Taliban sure didn’t (although one might admit Al-Qaeda did).
Balb - I know what conspiracy theorizing is, but I think you understand what I mean when I say that they are marginalized and seen as crackpots.
I mentioned JFK for a reason - because virtually nobody believes Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone anymore - even though it was the simplest explanation to blame him. My point is that Occam’s Razor isn’t universal and doesn’t address the many instances of when people HAVE conspired to do things which could have been explained away in a more simple fashion. It assumes that people or groups do not have the intent or ability to cover things up, and purposely concoct a simpler, easier to digest narrative of what happened in advance.
I’m running on and on here. We have all seen loose change, and we have all read alot of the same theories on 9/11. I don’t know the entire story, and don’t subscribe to any single theory, but I know 3 things;
-Alot og things don’t add up.
-Powerful People have alot to gain from 9/11, and the fact that anyone involved would be convicted of treason and very likely lynched in the streets if they were found out is a strong reason to keep a lid on things.
-The usual suspects have gotten away with (many, many) things before.
“When the 9/11 commission conducts a “thorough investigationâ€, but is a purely partisan body and releases incomplete or blacked-out report, one gets suspicious.”
American conservative felt that the 9/11 commission was a purely partisan (anti-Bush) body too.
“I mentioned JFK for a reason - because virtually nobody believes Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone anymore - even though it was the simplest explanation to blame him.”
I’m not sure that’s true…and it’s certainly not relevant. Most Americans believe in angels. That has no bearing at all on their existence.
As you may be aware, a huge, second study of the Kennedy assassination has just concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald did, in fact, act alone.
Bottom line: I have yet to read a single coherent theory that even begins to make more sense than the mainstream version, beyond a kind of generalized, unarticulated conspiracy. Do I believe everything about 9/11 (or the Kennedy assassination, or the death of elvis) is known? Nope. Do I believe that the overwhelming preponderence of evidence supports the premise of an Al Qaeda planned and executed attack MORE than a vast, secret conspiracy which has miraculously remained undiscovered? Yes.
“American conservative felt that the 9/11 commission was a purely partisan (anti-Bush) body too.”
Yup, I’m sure they did. I don’t think thats relevant either. What (I think) is relevant is that the commission was not the best body of people to investigate 9/11. Perhaps I should have said “political” instead of “partisan”.
About this JFK thing - my intent was to point out anomalies that violate Occams Razor. I honestly did not hear about this second study (gonna Google it now).
In a statement that I’m sure you’ll rip apart one way or another, I’ll say that any good conspiracy is one that isn’t discovered (or proven).
Perhaps the biggest reason I don’t buy the mainstream line is that (some) of the very people who are responsible for ascertaining all of the facts and the truth of it all are quite powerful, and have alot to gain either directly or indirectly.
Questions you have heard a million times before remain unanswered (at least to a satisfactory degree). Where’s the plane that hit the pentagon? Why did building 7 fall? etc. etc. You have heard them all before, so I can’t understand how anyone can buy the official line when planes disappear and buildings spontaneously collapse.
“I don’t think thats relevant either.”
The point is that folks on either side of a partisan fence were bound to be unhappy with and distrustful of the Commission’s findings, as you were.
On the second Kennedy study: Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Norton, 2007, 1632 p. ISBN 0393045250.
“In a statement that I’m sure you’ll rip apart one way or another, I’ll say that any good conspiracy is one that isn’t discovered (or proven).”
Shrug. There’s an invisible, intangible alien sitting on your desk right now controlling your thoughts. You can’t prove I’m wrong, can you?
‘Where’s the plane that hit the pentagon?”
I’m sorry, what does that mean? Small pieces of debris were recovered (and photographed), and the fuselage section burned up.
Why did building 7 fall?
Well, the working hypothesis of the 2004 interim report by the National Insitute of STandards and technology was that “at a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in “a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure”. They will publish their final report at the end of this year sometime.
I agree with Throbbin. To believe the official account of what happened on 9/11 would be downright naive in my opinion. There are way too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies involved for it all to be just one big coincidence.
If you go to the FBI website and look at Bin Laden’s profile on the 10 most wanted list you’ll notice that he’s wanted for the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi, but there is no mention of 9/11 except for a cryptic add on “other terrorist attacks throughout the world”. That’s because the evidence that linked him to the 9/11 attacks was tenuous at best and a blatant fabrication at worst.
Now I’m not stating outright that Bin Laden had no part in the attack. There’s a distinct possibility that he did mastermind the whole thing, but the truth is that we will never know for sure as long as the government refuses to release some compelling evidence to prove its claims. I for one will not believe the official version of events until it does so.
We already know by now that America’s leaders will lie about anything as long as they think the lie will be more politically expedient than the truth. Why would I trust them about this?
To quote Carl Sagan: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
““extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenceâ€.
Exactly. Carl Sagan was as scathingly funny in his writings on conspiracy theorists in the pages of Sceptical Inquirer and Sceptic Magazine as he was about those who blindly accept the government press release in The Demon Haunted World. He believed in critical thought…applied to EVERY side of an argument.
So…present a hypothesis here, and we’ll weigh your evidence against the evidence supporting the conclusions of the 9/11 inquiry and the NIST study. And then we’ll decide which scenario is more probable.
It’s the US government that has the evidence, Balb. They’re also the one making the claim. I’ve looked at the evidence the government has put forward and it is anything but compelling. As Throbbin mentioned in one of his posts, there is no evidence available to the public that proves that a commercial passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon… They showed a few pieces of a plane that were small enough to pick up with bare hands… Where was the fuselage? Luggage? passenger seats? wing or tail segments? Nothing substantial. They aren’t even releasing any surveillance videos that show a passenger jet crashing into the pentagon. They released a few grainy frames that show SOMETHING hitting it, but nothing that looks a whole lot like a commercial jetliner. If they would only release a video that shows clearly that a Boeing 757 crashed into the building, I would be satisfied, but they have done so such thing. If you look at the photos of the pentagon right after it was hit, you can clearly see that the hole isn’t nearly big enough to accommodate a Boeing 757. They did not find a single body or a plane in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, just a scorched hole in the ground with a few small pieces of debris…
Believe what you want, Balb, but I for one just can’t reconcile all the ‘coincidences’. I haven’t made any claims that I know what happened on 9/11, I have simply stated that the evidence the US government has presented to prove it’s assertion that a handful of Arabs in a cave in Afghanistan pulled off such a complex attack unassisted is very weak.
Well, actually, if you recall, it wasn’t ” a handful of Arabs in a cave”. Prior to 9/11, it was a fairly well established network, operating relatively in the open in countries like Afghanistan and Sudan, and in several of the Arab countries. With a track record of terrorist attacks.
I’m a sceptic (I really am, you know), and I am examining two hypotheses.
One says this was an Al Qaeda initiative, pretty much start to finish. In support of that hypothesis, we have the their claim of responsibility, every major inquiry conducted to date, the fact that they had conducted other terrorist attacks, links between the attackers and Al Qaeda, and so on.
The other hypothesis is…well, there isn’t one, really; just that somehow several thousand people from several dozen orgnizations and agencies somehow managed to stage and then cover up a mass murder on a scale completely unprecedented, and somehow hoodwinked hundreds of thousands of investigators (many of whom were, presumably Democrats, or folks who’d be delighted to expose a conspiracy, and media (including all the best investigative reporters on the planet, many of whom would be delighted to expose a conspiracy) and the world at large.
Believe what you like. For me…well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I await the extraordinary proof. Haven’t seen it yet.
TESTIFY!
Of course, if it turns out I’m wrong, I’m REALLY gonna look like an asshole.
But hey…some would say it’s not that big a stretch.
Well neither of us really know what happened for sure. That’s the whole point, the government is keeping it secret.
I don’t think that the 9/11 conspiracies are all that far fetched though when you consider the billions of dollars that are spent but not accounted for every year by organizations like the Pentagon and the CIA and if you look at what these organizations have done in the past around the world. I believe that executing the attacks on 9/11 was certainly within the capability of these organizations.
It’s difficult to comprehend the incredible luck for Bin Laden and his crew that NORAD just happened to be in the middle of a massive training exercise leaving most of the country almost undefended when the attacks took place… or that the 9/11 commission thought that following the money trail that funded the attacks was of ‘little practical value’…
It just seems a bit fishy to me, is all. I hope that someday we will know what really happened. At this point it looks pretty unlikely that we will, but I really don’t know why anyone takes what the American government says seriously anymore these days, they’ve lost all credibility.
I work in construction and I know several engineers. To knock down the WTC towers with 2 airplanes full of fuel is patently impossible. It’s probably even impossible with a plane containing a large amount of TNT. Think of a plane hitting the WTC as a bullet striking a STOP sign in redneck country. The stop sign doesn’t fall down.
There is positively no reasonable explanation for WTC building 7 falling down. Which is why the administration has not even tried to offer up an explanation, believing (wisely) that saying nothing is far more convincing than saying anything that could be refuted.
And finally, there is a growing number of 747 pilots, some with 30 years of experience, who say that the Pentagon attack by an Arab who couldn’t fly a twin Cessna engine, to somehow commandeer an airplane, fly to the Pentagon, orchestrate a perfect 333 degree turn, and fly along the lawn without so much as disturbing the grass, and then land in the shape of a Cruise Missile without any airplane wreckage whatsoever.
The main refutation I’ve heard that Bush can’t be behind 9/11 is because he’s an idiot. Nobody said Bush had to be behind 9/11. All that is necessary to know is that he and many of his friends stood to gain by this attack, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. In fact the belief that Bush was behind 9/11 is so mainstream that I hear major news programs insinuate so almost every day that passes. They go almost to the extreme edge of simply saying “the neo-cons masterminded 9/11″ without actually saying it. At this point it’s not even whether they did, but how they did it.
One last thing. No building made of structurally reinforced steel can fall at the speed of gravity (as the WTC buildings did) without each and every support column failing simultaneously. The idea that 2 airplanes knocked down 3 buildings at free-fall speed is not only unlikely. It’s utterly and irrefutably impossible by the laws of physics. Oh and, did I mention it would be the first time in history that a fire or airplane did collapse a building? Yes. It would.
I worked in construction and I know several engineers too. None of them are qualified to comment on the impact of a completely novel set of stressors on architecture never subjected to those stressors before.
Sorry, folks. I don’t like Bush either. But cherrypicking bad arguments from your favourite conspiracy sites doesn’t amount to an argument.
Here’s a challenge for you. Provide a scenario for the collapse of building seven that’s more plausible that the model currently favoured by the two major investigations so far. I’m very curious.
How about this - it was deliberately blown up (or imploded) because the owner of the WTC buildings (including 7) had just taken out a hunormous insurance policy on them only weeks prior…and stood to gain billions of dollars if it “collapsed”. How’s that one Balb?
BTW - no one (on this blog) thinks you are an asshole, or would call you one if you are wrong. After reading your writings, we would expect nothing less of you than your very best in defending your rationale and convictions.
As a totally unrelated aside - I just finished watching Sicko. If you haven’t seen it, go watch it! I know Balb has misgivings because of Moore’s style, but it’s just too provocative and common-sense to miss!
I’ve heard good things about Sicko, and the fact that my conservative buddy Vinny from NYC said he watched it and it moved him to tears means that I probably will cave in and see it. After Harry Potter, though.
Okay, so in your scenario:
- Was the owner of the WTC in league with Bush, the CIA, the Air Force, NSA, and all the other “conspirators”?
- By what method were the buildings (presumably the key three buildings) rigged to detonate in the weeks before 9/11 without the notice of any of the hundreds of thousand of people who work or pass through the building…especially in light of the fact that security in the buildings was incredibly tight following the first bombing attempt in 1993?
- How do you account for the fact that absolutely not trace of any evidence of artificial demolition has surfaced, despite at least eight major criminal and engineering investigations?
(The asshole comment was self deprecating humour to reassure new arrival Jesse that we don’t take ourselves too seriously here. Don’t worry, Throbbin’, I ain’t getting all sensitive ;)
Welcome, Jesse, by the way…always excellent to get a new perspective.
I don’t know if he was in league with anyone, or who the others may be (CIA, NSA, etc. are just the usual suspects) just that he had a lot to gain from 9/11 too (Billions in liquid assets).
If he WAS in league, then that would kinda alleviate any problems conspirators would have with security - “Excuse me fine security gentlemen…I own these buildings…take a hike for 20 minutes will ya? Here’s $50, don’t tell anyone”. Just a possibility. An oversimplified possibility, but a general portrait of what may have happened. Either that, or the NSA, CIA, or whoever is just really good at circumventing security (that IS what they are trained to do, isn’t it?).
I’d say the strongest evidence of controlled demolition is the fact that, as Jesse and thousands of others have observed, the buildings toppled at free fall speeds, and no steel structure in the history of the planet has ever collapsed due to a strike by a plane. This is “circumstantial evidence”, but compelling nontheless.
(Was kinda worrying about the sensitivity thing.)
“I don’t know if he was in league with anyone.”
Oh, but he must have been. Think about the implications of your scenario. He was obviously in league with Al Qaeda, because their pilots flew the planes. You don’t deny that, do you? And with Bush, because he’s behind it all, right? And with the air force, because, as remarked above, it couldn’t just have been a coincident that they were conducting exercises on 9/11. And with ALL the engineers and investigators and journalists who combed through the wreckage and carefully eliminated any trace of the demolition. Not to mention the designers of the demolition, the suppliers of the tons of explosives, the workies who actually smuggled the tons of explosives into the buildings, placed them, wired them, and programmed the detonation, all without a single detectable trace, before or after. And of course, the insurance investigators were totally hoodwinked as well.
So…were all these thousands of conspirator neo-conservative republicans, completely sworn to secrecy? All the investigators and cops and journalists and engineers too? Phew. That must have taken a heck of a lot of work. And not a single leak or trace of evidence in six years. Damn, that’s a good conspiracy. Especially for an adminstration that has shown itself incapable of covering up relatively minor misdemeanours like the Plame affair. But they’ve managed to keep this completely under wraps. Astonishing, really.
“as Jesse and thousands of others have observed, the buildings toppled at free fall speeds, and no steel structure in the history of the planet has ever collapsed due to a strike by a plane.”
This sounds like mock-science copied from someone’s conspiracy website. I actually don’t understand what you’re talking about here. Could you explain in plain talk?
My sensitivity? You’re one of the good guys, dude. You can say what you want.
“This sounds like mock-science copied from someone’s conspiracy website. I actually don’t understand what you’re talking about here. Could you explain in plain talk?”
The biggest evidence for some sort of controlled demolition is the fact that they faell at free fall speeds. No collapsing building with their structure should have been able to do that. You know damn well what I was trying to say in my post.
Regarding the owner of the buildings - who knows if he was involved, maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. The point is he could have been, and he had alot to gain from their destruction. You still haven’t given us a reasonable explanation why building 7 fell.
You quote the Nationa Institute of Standards & Technology, which sounds like an awfully legitimate and edumacated organization, who attributed building 7’s fall to ” a local failure in a critical column”.
Have you even watched the videos?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
Check them out, and let me know if you believe that damage to a single, even critical, column would make a building like this collapse at a uniform speed, in an almost perfectly even pattern.
Also - wanted to ask you what your definition is of a “theory” in this case, so that we may know what your criterion are for the strength of a theory. I am not trying to develop my own theory here, I am trying to show how the maintstream version fo events just isn’t plausible, so that people smarter than I can go forth and find out what really happened.
“The biggest evidence for some sort of controlled demolition is the fact that they faell at free fall speeds. No collapsing building with their structure should have been able to do that. You know damn well what I was trying to say in my post.”
Umm…no, I don’t. I know what the universal rate of accelleration for falling objects is. I watch the videos. I see objects falling in a way that seems to me to be consistent with the lawas of physics, as I understand them. I am not being wilfully obtuse here: I don’t understand what you’re saying. Can you rephrase?
“Regarding the owner of the buildings - who knows if he was involved, maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. The point is he could have been, and he had alot to gain from their destruction.”
My point was this: any alternative explanation has to be weighed for plausibility against the current explanation. Your suggestion that the building owner was a co-conspirator introduces a level of complexity to the “conspiracy” that approaches the utterly ludicrous (see response 29), as do any of the other interesting conspiracy theories I’ve read.
So to state the obvious, one more time, I have two choices: accept that the most obvious explanation is the correct one, with some anomalies that are currently under investigation: or accept that an administration incapable of covering up its own corruption somehow pulled off, in PERFECT secrecy, a plan involving thousands of people, dozens of government agencies, tons of explosives carefully placed throughout one of the most heavily populated and highly secured pieces of real estate on the planet, and have kept it perfect secret for six years. Naw.
“You quote the Nationa Institute of Standards & Technology, which sounds like an awfully legitimate and edumacated organization…”
Ummm…I’m sorry, is that phrasing supposed to somehow diminish their legitimacy? Would you like to call them poopy heads, too? Will that strengthen your argument?
“…who attributed building 7’s fall to †a local failure in a critical columnâ€.
More correctly, whose preliminary findings do, and whose final report is due later this year after an addition year of data analysis. Yes.
“Have you even watched the videos?”
Yes, several times.
“Check them out, and let me know if you believe that damage to a single, even critical, column would make a building like this collapse at a uniform speed, in an almost perfectly even pattern.”
Throbbin, ever see the video of the collapse of the Tacoma bridge? New engineering principles, tortional stress, unanticipated resonances…the bridge appears to be literally dancing itself to death. New engineering subjected to new stresses do things no-one can anticipate; it took about thirty years for them to figure out why Tacoma collapsed the way it did.
I’ll say it again: thousands of engineers, presumably not all neoconservative conspirators, have watched this video, poked through the site, and analyzed what happened. So far there is NO evidence for a deliberate demolition, beyond the fact that the building collapsed in a way that reminded some observers of one. (Funny…you’d think a conspiracy able to deceive ALL the world’s media, and ALL those investigators, would have figured out a more convincing looking collapse, eh?)
“Also - wanted to ask you what your definition is of a “theory†in this case…”
Any alternative take on the events that doesn’t involve a greater leap of credibility than the existing version.
“I am trying to show how the maintstream version fo events just isn’t plausible”.
Well, your key argument seems to be something about the speed of falling objects, so I look forward to your restatement of that so I can get your point.