Comment: Bad premises. Incorrect conclusions

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Someone fix this logic for me. (see in situ)

Bad premises. Incorrect conclusions

1) No modern steel skyscraper has collapsed into its footprint from fire. Therefore, this incident - explained as having been caused by a fire fueled by office furniture - should be viewed with skepticism. The U.S. government has endorsed this version of events. The U.S. government has a long history of fibbing, so its word doesn't suffice.
2) I believe the missile story is a canard. However, anyone providing an alternative explanation should be held to the same standard. If they were missiles, provide compelling footage or other proof.
3) Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane, it supposedly collapsed into its footprint due to fire. (see 1.)
4) As far as I know, the U.S. government has not endorsed any fantastic story concerning the fate of Ramsey. When the government does, and decides to declare war on child beauty contest entrant killers, it will be worth more scrutiny.
5) People have a hard time admitting ignorance. What we are left with is a list of plausible explanations. The simplest explanation is usually the best. When looking for a culprit one has to find someone with motive and opportunity.
If the buildings were not destroyed due to 19 hijackers flying three planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, then one has to ask who had the motive and opportunity.
Since the U.S. government used the story to its advantage and appears satisfied with the stupid 19 + Osama story, one has to look at whether the U.S. government appeared at least complicit in what happened on 9/11/01.
Personally, I don't know who did it, but I believe from looking at this that elements of U.S. intelligence, Israeli intelligence, British intelligence, and Saudi intelligence agencies were involved. Whether missiles, or holograms, or thermite or something else was used, I really don't care. All that matters is the government is lying and doesn't seem interested in finding the truth.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson