Comment: Absolutely

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You and Eric Hoffer seem similar (see in situ)


And while I respect MrBengal quite a bit and agree with his logic, I don't focus on the Pentagon as much... honestly, because I think the subset of truthers who think the Pentagon wasn't hit by planes is smaller than the number of truthers who think the Twin Towers were brought down by thermite or nano-thermite or explosives of another sort.

The way to bust a theory is to address each point logically. The way to put someone over on people, or to try and make something of an amorphous mass of conjecture is to continually shift topics on them and go, "but look at this coincidence here" not giving them enough time to work through any standing point. It works for shysters all over the world, just look at Bernie Madoff. Heck, look at the Fed!

When you examine each point with more than a cursory glance, that's when the conspiracy theories fall apart.

Similarly, Eric Hoffer is on a mission against "nano-thermite", and ignoring all other lines of inquiry.

Actually, if you've seen similar arguments I've been in here, dating back to 2007, you'll see that I've argued plenty against other theories, I'm just singling out this one because the OP suggested we "put things to rest" and then cited bogus studies. When the OP removes the bogus information, I'll move on to the next line of inquiry.

I feel like I've made my position on this fairly clear over the last, what 5-6 years? I believe the government at the highest levels could be complicit, or stood by and watched, or paid someone to do it, etc. However, I believe a more likely theory to be the one proposed by Ron Paul: Government bureaucracy and the cover your ass mentality got in the way of effective threat management, spurred on by blowback from our needless aggressive actions overseas. However, I'll DEFINITELY say that some people knew it was going to happen and covered their asses quick.

When we get to the physics of it though, that's where I have to draw the line, because the plausibility of thermiting up the whole building is less than that of a collapse due to impact from a plane and subsequent fires. Additionally, the evidence for thermite is based solely on conjecture and a botched "scientific" study published in a pay for play open publication, which has since been overturned by more complete science.

However, if you'd like to play the "I'm paid to be here" one, I can Google hangout with you and make the same arguments while I run my business.

I'm not calling anyone a paid shill, but this behavior is obvious to anyone who reads all the comments.

So then... you're calling me an unpaid shill? I mean, the implication is obviously insulting, no matter how you couch the accusation. However, it's fairly obvious that when you're beaten on logical footing or annoyed that someone would disagree with you on a cohesive basis, your only recourse is to attempt to cast aspersion on my motivations, while yours are obviously totally innocent.

Lets try reversing it: "There is a TON of money to be paid in peddling conspiracy theories, how much are you being paid to support this nonsense regarding the Harrit et al paper?"

Do you see why this line of inquiry is absurd and insulting in the context of a rational conversation?

Eric Hoffer