there is a good article at slate on the history of the 9/11 "truth" movement and the circularity of the arguments.
also found it interesting the guy behind "loose change" isn't a truther anymore. well he believes there is some kind of cover-up, that's it. his continued investigations didn't hold up. ie: talked to witnesses that saw a plane at the pentagon, not a missile.
i was the same. i thought the conspiracies had some merit at one point, but the facts just didn't hold up to scrutiny over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
One of the things about 9/11 and the so called truth movement is the argument over WTC7. The truth moment states that "WTC7 fell for no reason" and that there was "no damage to the building". And they've said it so many times that's almost become a fact - I mean, you can only hear the same things over and over again until people just accept it as fact.
These two quotes above state otherwise. WTC was hit by falling debris, was on fire for fifteen hours - unchecked the entire time - and suffered untold damage form when both towers fell.
Just the towers alone falling was similar to an earthquake, and enough to bring down buildings in it's own right.
|