Quote:
|
My beef is that anyone who disagrees with the official story is branded a nut, a wacko simply because they believe in something other then the advertised story.
|
It's not that someone who believes in something other than the official story is a "wacko", it's moreso that someone who believes in something other than the official story, and supports that belief through junk science, is a "wacko" (not saying that's you; just saying).
To go to one of my old favorite standbys, wouldn't we all agree that the followers of the Flat Earth Society are a bunch of nutjobs?
Look, we KNOW what happened on 9/11 - the proof was there for all to see, live on practically every TV station in America. Then, come investigation time, the forensics completely add up, as do common sense. Following that, a few nutjobs here and there take quotes out of context and/or write papers attempting to explain how forensically things do not add up, despite not using science to support their claims.
For instance, my personal favorite, was how steel doesn't melt at the temperature jetfuel burns at, and therefore this proves there was a demolition. It's a funny premise considering any idiot with half a brain could have researched to see that, while the temperature of jetfuel indeed doesn't melt steel, it DOES weaken it DRAMATICALLY, more than enough to contribute to a collapse. Oh, and there was undoubtedly other substances that caught fire and burned...
My point is that the truth is always the truth. The wacko stuff comes in when people attempt to redefine the truth in support of their predispositions. Doing so about the tragedy of 9/11 is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, in my opinion.