Comment: I'm about 12 minutes in to this video...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Wow - this is interesting (see in situ)

I'm about 12 minutes in to this video...

...and to be honest, it seems like the same sort of easily refutable stuff I've been encountering on this topic for years. However, if I have time tomorrow, I'll start my rebuttle along with the times in the video for each issue. For starters, this guy can't seem to figure out why a fire would keep burning so high up in the twin towers, but it wouldn't keep burning in the Pentagon, on the ground floor. I think its pretty easy to figure that out, but for starters, it's dang hard to fight a fire 30 or 40 stories up, and rather easy to fight one 2 stories up. This guy is making the claim that two different planes hitting two very differently designed buildings at two extremely different heights should be having he same affect. If this was a science project, and you substituted the Pentagon for the WTC, and you changed the floor the fire was on from the 80th to the first, and you expected your science teacher to think that was sound science, you would fail that assignment. Those differences are huge variables and to change them but for some reason expect the same outcome is just illogical. In addition, he points out the things in the Pentagon which weren't destroyed and assumes that means that the damage was enough to prove a plane hit, but he ignores the fact that plenty of items survived the twin towers crash and collapse as well. To him, everything that wasn't destroyed somehow proves that it wasn't a plane. I'll get more into it tomorrow, but I'll be very surprised if tomorrow, when I watch the rest, he doesn't reverse his stance and begin to claim that the planes which hit the WTC couldnt have caused enough damage to bring the towers down. Of course this would be illogical according to his own belief that the lack of damage at the Pentagon somehow proves it wasn't a plane, but the excessive damage at the WTC somehow proves it wasn't a plane also. Again, I don't know that he will take that rout, but I sure bet he will. Surely you see the flaw there? At the Pentagon, the damage isn't enough to be a plane, and at the WTC, the damage is too much to be a plane. In either case, he makes an assumption about what he should see, and when he doesn't see it, it proves to him that the conspiracy is true, even if what he expects to see contradicts itself from case to case.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).