On Jul 25, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Tom C wrote: > You and Aaron and the rest of the world didn't watch two fully fueled > jetliners crash into the buildings on TV?
Huh? Why do I get labeled as a 9/11 denier because I want to actually hear what his claims are before I call his claims bullshit? And where does he claim that no jetliners hit the building or that 9/11 didn't happen? I don't call "moon landing fake" claims bullshit -- I look at the photos and read the reasons why the claimant thinks they're fake and then determine for myself what I believe (and I believe that the moon landings happened and that a lot of people on the internet don't understand scale, directional lighting, depth of field, perspective, atmosphere, film processing, lens design theory and a host of other things). But just because the last guy was full of crap with his claims, I don't dismiss the next guy without seeing what it is that he's claiming. I saw a jetliner hit a building on TV. It was a sad and horrible day. Why is it a bad thing to learn more about what happened? Reading crackpot theories can be just as illuminating as reading the official analysis, because the crackpots often hit on key elements that bear further study. More often than not, further study debunks their claims -- but we learn more in the process. Some people hate learning, and I don't know why. They "know" what happened, don't want to think about it anymore, all done, no further study. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
