it is difficult to judge because i listen to BOTH sides and on BOTH sides there are arguments for their repsective view on the case. that is obvious, or not? i heard this interview with the man who headed the firemen that day (if i recall correctly) and he found it a shame that people consider a conspiracy, which he saw as disrespect to the families of the victims. and then there is this guy who came out last, claiming his words were not properly represented in the comission report. you have scientists on both sides. military people on both sides. journalists. and so on and so forth. i would say that this is undisputable, right? so, even if there seems to be interpretations of all facts that "connect together perfectly", that does not mean that such interpretations are all correct. i hope you can agree with that. it is like building trading systems. you can find parameter settings that "connect ... perfectly" and are still ... random fluke. now do not get me wrong. i am finding a fireworker, thus an experienced person, who claims his testimony is not represented in any way proper to the importance of the content of this very testimony, an unacceptable situation. other thing. i do not think a round table would end the discussions. impossible, i mean some people are truly paranoid and some are making money selling conspiracy spam. but it maybe would cut down most of the doubts people like ourselves have. so it would bring the doubter/believer ratio away from even ... in whatever direction ...
i agree. if you ask me that sounds like an explosion. question is: are there other events that sound like explosions? just think of a newbie coming to you with a backtest and consider the same newbie presenting this backtest to his friends and family. same story. probably very different impression, right? so my conclusion is: see my own limits of expertise and then listen to the experts. if there are credible ones on both sides, only a confrontation of them can bring clarity. and not by web, books or reports: dialogue. uncut. with prepared material.
Go read some of the interviews that the firemen, ect., gave after 9/11 and was published by the NY Times. Earlier in this thread there was a link that had a link to them. They are in PDF form if you want to download them and read them. I have read quite a few of them and haven't run into any that talk about "explosions" before the first WTC tower came down. And they were in the lobby right before the tower came down. P.S. And as far as some of the websites that like to claim there wasn't even any airplanes that hit the WTC, that they were "missles" or whatever and the airplanes were "painted" into the video's or whatever, it is total BS. In almost all of the firemen and EMS interviews I read, they say they saw airplane parts on the ground outside the towers that day.
a truly independent inquiry would go a long way to satisy those with questions and doubts. the bush administration in many ways fueled the doubt with their behavior and decisions regarding the 911 commission. conflict of interest is a universal concept. for example the panel featured a staff director (Zelikow) who had to oversee the investigation, testify, and recuse himself simultaneously. to this date, there has not been an obective inquiry into 911
That Oliver Stone, Mr. Conspiracy Theory himself, made a movie about 9/11 sans these rabid claims speaks volumes IMO.
do you respect the general concept of conflict of interest? can/would you acknowledge the existence of one under any circumstances we shouldn't be drawing conclusions about an event with such heavy implications by interpreting the repertoire of a hollywood director, don't you think?
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EVkYCIaxgu0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EVkYCIaxgu0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
do a better search, not that i expect u to be able to but give it a try. there are scores, and i mean scores of firefighters talking about bombs, including richard banachiski who said 'it was like if they planned to take down the buildings, boom boom boom, like a belt going all around the building..'
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tEuDeU4IZjE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tEuDeU4IZjE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>