Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Yet in that paragraph you talk extensively about the crashes, and not the building collapse. You say that the FAA and NSTB specifically (not as an example) have a duty to the families to find out the cause of the crashes, and you specifically mention "aviation disasters". Also, the National Transportation Safety Board has nothing to do with buildings, only with transportation safety.
|
Ok, well I can only insist that I know what I said and the context I intended by it, I thought I used 2 examples 1) Aviation distasters, 2) The Sinking of the Titanic. Now if I didnt make that clear enough - then I apologise.
You and I have come to blows over a 'context disagreement' once before as I recall, it got rather heated and nobody won. So I'd like to nip this in bud and agree to disagree if thats ok with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
If it doesn't really matter, why mention it?.
|
Because you brought it up? Anyway, does 90% of anything that gets said on any internet forum really matter in the end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
You seem to be very adamant about arguing for one side, despite your protests to the contrary. If all your doing is trying to keep both sides open, I apologize. It just doesn't look that way to me. I've been wrong before.
True, but again you seem to be arguing specifically for the "Truther" side, and I still have yet to see anything there other than speculation.
No, I and several others see it that way because you argue so vehemently for it. As I've pointed out to so many others, the old saying is true: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." And you keep saying it in the strongest terms possible. To me it looks like the old saying "I'm not a racist, but..." In this case it looks like "I'm not a Truther, but..."
As I say, if I'm wrong I apologize, but that's how it looks from where I sit.
|
All fair comments Steve and I can understand that's how it looks, but please keep in mind that I can only try to defend an opinion against those who rise to challenge it. Simply put, within this thread, I don't have a 9/11 Truther on my back personally challenging what I believe (or there lack of)
Although if I did, i might well have might work cut out by the likes of yourself and August, Aka -The majority of subsimmers tend to fully support the official version of 9/11 100%. Nothing wrong with that, but I dont quite share the same view, that is all.
For this reason also I did not publicly challenge the views of the OP, I knew he was toast from the moment I laid eyes on the topic title,
and I wasn't wrong. In hindsight i should have kept my own mouth shut.
P.S: For what its worth, on Youtube 'Truthers' have called me, a moron, a sheep, a coward and many things I cannot repeat here. It would seem that over there Im one of you, and over here Im one of them, So I'm quite used to getting beaten with sticks from all sides when it comes to 9/11.
"Its not what you say, its how you say it" yes, and also
who you say it to.