Excellent response Richard. This whole 9-11 conspiracy thing is a fascinating study on our relationship to evidence and knowledge. It is the human condition to lack perfect knowledge and this gives all the wiggle room needed to make up low probability explanation for the events of 9-11.
Just to add to your list, our local news had plenty of pictures of plane parts on the local news about the Pentagon, as well as interviews with people who happened to be on I-95 who saw the plane hit the building. It was "like a missile" in that it went right for the building and killed a bunch of people. But it wont matter how many times each point is refuted, the people who want to believe this was an "inside job" will just switch to some other discrepancy in the descriptions of that chaotic day to focus on. I'm not unsympathetic to mistrust of the "movers and shakers" in society. Its just that focusing on this kind of low probability crime takes away from focusing on the more obvious betrayals of our trust. But again what I consider "obvious" will be the next person's "low probability" theory! Imperfect humans with imperfect knowledge, gotta love it! --- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rick Archer wrote: > > A friend's comments: > > > > Regarding the failure of NORAD to intercept > > the four hijacked planes on 9/11 > > > FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets > on alert in the contiguous 48 states. > > > One of these, Building 7, was never hit by > > a plane and even NIST is ashamed to advance > > a reason for its collapse. > > > FACT: WTC 7 might have withstood the physical > damage it received, or the fire that burned > for hours, but those combined factors along > with the building's unusual construction > were enough to set off the chain-reaction > collapse. > > > "I saw nothing of significance at the point > > of impact... > > > FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen > pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was > taken by photographer Rob Howard and published > in New York magazine. > > Read more debunking: > > 'Debunking the 9/11 Myths' > Populart Mechanics, March 2005 > http://tinyurl.com/rslnc >
