On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Alan Dayley wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Joshua Zeidner > wrote: > > > > but the fact that these people haven't showed up would indicate to an > > objective mind that perhaps we don't have the full story. There have > been > > quite a few credible stories of 911 witnesses being harassed and > > threatened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rZ_K67OHWw > > > > this isn't a new take on this subject, but the fact that we have > someone > > right here who claims to possess such evidence, but refuses to produce it > is > > a bit disconcerting. His alibi: that people mock and deride him when he > > posts the pictures. If anything he will be mocked if he doesn't post the > > pictures. > > Not-so-hypothetical situation: > > A amateur photograph is presented. Taken in a room of any abandoned > house, there is an artifact of light to one side that looks remarkably > like a see-through woman in an old fashioned dress. > > The believer will point out all the reasons, some very logical, why > this is a picture of a ghost. The skeptic will point out all the > reasons, some very logical, why it is some flare or flaw in the film > or something and therefore not a ghost. > > Neither will convince the other, no matter how long they discuss. > Why? Because they each see through their own prejudices and beliefs. > They each see their own truth. just a quick point... its an asymmetrical conflict. On one hand you have an 'official' investigation with a (semi) consistent story and credible official testimony. On the other hand you have a mob of angry theorists speaking at varying levels of anonymity, some which may be correct, all being considered as one group that shares the same level of credibility. I certainly feel there is some kind of subterfuge going on here, but that doesn't mean that I agree with every person who disagrees with the 911 Commission Report. Now to the topic at hand: While I too question and wonder about all > the events surrounding 9/11/2001, I generally think the people on the > two extremes of the discussions will never reconcile. And, no matter > the evidence presented, including silly government actions like > confiscating video and film, very few will ever change sides or > convince one to believe the other story. > > If Charles does or does not produce photos, it will do little to > decide the debate here or in the world at large. Given that he did just post his pictures... the fact remains there is no compelling evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon. Any reasoning individual would question the fact that something as big as a plane would likely leave incontrovertible evidence if it struck such an important building in such a crowded area. Charles claims he did see a plane, and one interesting thing I just noticed on the CNN video- this person is saying the the plane 'stopped short' of the Pentagon, so does seem to agree that a plane was there as Charles corroborates. > The believers will > continue to believe and the skeptics won't. And if emotions run high > in an unproductive debate the only result will be broken > relationships. There is a controversy, and there is a truth behind it. -jmz -- "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." --Albert Einstein - http://www.joshuazeidner.com/