On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Alan Dayley <
alandd@consultpros.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Joshua Zeidner <jjzeidner@gmail.com>
> 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/
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)