"Truthers", 9/11 and Operation Northwoods

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Well if you read carefully you would see that I was using the NTSB as an example. I was talking about the speculation over building collapes, rather than the plane crashes.
I appreciate that NTSBs job would have been near impossible in the case of the WTC crashes as the subsequent collapes reduced all (but the buildings stuctural steel) in to peices small enough to hold in the palm of your hand or smaller.

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.

Well, metal doesnt 'vapourise' but that doesnt really matter - in the case of WTC I was talking about the stuctural failure buildings, all the stuctural steal was still sitting there.

If it doesn't really matter, why mention it?

Sorry? Where did i say 9/11 has to have be a conspiricy? Is there a rule some where that says we must conform to one of two sides in every argument?

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.

There are conspiricy theories for everything, most of which are just misinterpretations by ecentric people. But for 9/11 there is a bit more than that, You also have fire fighters from the scene, Architects and even Pentagon officials disputing some aspect or another of official story, while thats is not proof or disproof of anything, it suggests (to me at least) that the offical conclusion might not exacly be as water tight as one would hope for something like 9/11.

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.

I never really expected to convince anyone of anything, its quite hard to do when im not overly convinced of anything in particular myself
I am saying what I think and why, but I am not insisting that you or anyone else must agree with it.
So that sounds rather more like you are trying to pin conspiricy bage to my shirt, possibly because you assume that if have doubts on the offical story -that conspiricy is only other conceivable place that I must be coming from. Wrong, If the question is 'what exactly happened on 9/11, then my answer is: 'I dont know and I wouldnt like to guess. Because If said I did know I might have to be jumping the gun.

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.