I agree that you cannot implicitly trust the NIST report or anything the government does. It clearly has a conflict of interest. That does not, however, justify the "truth movement" in portraying things in a biased manner. Since the truth movement is obviously presenting things in a biased manner you clearly cannot implicitly trust anything they say either. This is the primary point I am making and I wish you would specifically comment on this point. Wouldn't it be better in the long run to have full disclosure and present the issues in context?
"if a building falls onto its footprint, we can be certain that someone has planted explosives inside the building." You are jumping to conclusions. if a building falls into its footprint one should be suspicious of explosives and test for them. You are drawing false conclusions based on improper analogy and speculation. You should have a higher degree of skepticism, question everything.
Please dont use this silverstein quote. Its worthless as evidence. He denies it. Its meaning is ambiguous. Do you really think he would go on a show and say they ordered it down if he was really in the know about this whole plot and had it rigged ahead of time? Do you think the insurance companies would have payed him billions if they thought he staged it? If this is the best evidence people have than the CD argument is really terribly weak.
Could you provide any citation for where the engineers who wrote the FEMA report say their best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence? I know Richard Gage says that they said this but I cannot verify it anywhere else. In fact, when asked publicly the FEMA engineers vigorously defend their work and conclusions.
Explosives: I agree, why was testing not done, big red flag. These are the questions the truth movement should be asking.
Rather: looks can be deceiving, correlation does not prove causation, etc. I agree it should be looked into, but this does not prove anything.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Pau