Yes, Wikipedia 9/11 accounting is incredible and unbelievable!
Posted May 9th, 2008 by Minarchist
output
Yes, the Wikipedia 9/11 account is incredible and unbelievable!
The attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
WTC7 collapse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
No one is disputing that this was an incredible and unbelievable event, certainly not me. But I still tend to believe this accounting is probably at least mostly true. Why? Because not only can I not conjure an alternative theory, I have yet to see anyone else offer one either, that is even plausible, much less one that is less incredible or more believable than the WIkipedia accounting.
So, if your primary complaint about the "official story" (or the Wikipedia accounts) is that is is too incredible to be believed to be true, what alternative do you believe that you find plausible and more credible and believable than the official story?
After all, if your objection to accepting the official story as true is because you find it to be incredible, then shouldn't you be able to at least speculate about an alternative theory that would be more credible?
For example, say you find it incredible that the main towers could collapse from the impacts alone, that there had to be explosives in the buildings involved. Fine, then please explain how and why it is plausible that not only would someone plan this attack and coverup, but how they would get away with it. Remember, what you're claiming is that even though the official story is too incredible to be believed, it's not too incredible for someone to plan to use it as the cover story for what really happened. Now, please, explain to us how that's not more incredible than the official story.
Similar questions arise to any theory that claims WTC7 was destroyed by explosives.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The 9/11 truth movement
does not seek to postulate any number of the possible scenarios that took place on that day.
They want the one real truth and right now, we dont have it.
Just for fun though, google New World Order, and maybe, just maybe, youll stumble accross how such an incredible event could be pulled off.
and therein lies the problem
If you come home and your spouse says, "I won the lottery", your natural instinct may be to not believe. Why? Because immediately a more likely explanation comes to mind: "My leg is being pulled for some reason". Now, you might not know why, yet, but at least you have a working alternative theory that is plausible and less incredible and more believable than the story being offered (that the lottery was actually won).
In court, the defense is not required to offer an alternative theory, but they usually do. If nothing else, "somebody else did it" is the default unstated theory. In the OJ case they expanded on that and surmised that maybe not only someone else did it, but the cops were frustrated that they couldn't prove it was OJ and so framed him. The jury ultimately decided that the alternative theory was sufficiently likely to warrant being reasonably certain (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the DA's theory, "OJ did it", was true.
That's what the truthers are totally and completely missing. A plausible alternative theory, much less one that is less incredible and more believable than the official story. They reject the official story because they find it too incredible to believe, yet they offer no alternative plausible theory.
That's what makes the truthers irrational, and why are they are seen as nutcases, and why their association with the Ron Paul campaign is not helpful.
..Make that FOUR consecutive
..Make that FOUR consecutive threads he's posted on the subject of 9-11 Truth.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States