What you are reading right now is NOT the original entry that was here. I have deleted my original entry on a new 9/11 investigation because I was wrong. What was I wrong about? I’ll explain it. I think it’s important that I acknowledge this though for a few reasons, instead of just leaving it up unedited. Let me explain:
My original entry linked this video of a physicist Steven Jones making his case for why the explanations for 9/11 didn’t make sense. I also linked this group of over 700 architects and engineers who believe the official explanations for 9/11 don’t make sense. When I watched this video, I did something inappropriate for THIS site, and this is the point of revamping this entire entry. I went on to touch upon the highlights from Steven Jones’ video and I clarified that I wasn’t blaming this on any group specifically but that I did believe the investigation was done poorly. I gave no argument for the other side that it was done well and I didn’t explain why I thought the 9/11 investigation wasn’t done well – I just said I believed it could’ve happened better. But the fact remains is that this entry stood on the structure of 2 paltry links – it wouldn’t even take a model airplane to run into this entry before it collapsed to the ground.
So, in contrast to my other entries, this entry was weakly supported by me. However, in cohesion with my philosophy of all my other entries, the rule still stood – prove me wrong – take the opposite side of me and try and explain it to me, and I will attempt to objectively take in your information. And with this entry a couple of you tried. A long-time reader Ixobelle pointed out that he disagreed with me, but that wasn’t enough in itself to really back off my position. It was a commentor named Geoffrey that really impacted me though, the following is his comment:
Geoffrey Says:
August 17, 2009 at 5:23 pm editYou seem like a smart guy, and I have great respect for your past posts, so it surprises me here that you come off as someone who has unfortunately not read a single response to your positions. Everything you bring up, free fall speed, WT7, melting point of steel, all that stuff has a response to it, a good response. You seem to bring up these issues like they are something new and unrebutted.I am not going to get into them here, because there are literally bookfulls of this stuff on the Internet, and you should educate yourself more as to the details of some of these “holes” that you are poking at the official story. For every engineer’s statement pro 9/11-truth there are many statements against that position.
One last thing I want to say, and this is sort of intended as a general wisdom type thing. Whenever you encounter something that does not have a perfect explanation from science, it does not mean there is something nefarious going on. In the present example, if you take some separate facts like aluminum planes, melting point of steel, burning fuel, tall building, and cannot quite perfectly get from point A, crashing airplane, to point B, falling building, it does not mean that the crashing plane did not cause the falling building. Maybe you just have to look at it closer to figure out A to B. We do not have a ton of empirical data about commercial planes crashing into skyscrapers, so this is a bit of a case of first impression.
My initial response to this comment was to save face, to get defensive, to tell Mr. Geoffrey here that if he wanted to be so critical about my entry then he could start linking some of his claims instead of just telling me I’m wrong about mine. But then I walked away from the computer for a bit and thought about his comment. And I realized he was RIGHT when he said that I haven’t read a single response to these positions. For whatever reason I’ve always heard the doubt of the official explanations but (and this is where Geoffrey hit the nerve) I never took the time to research the responses to these positions.
So I typed in Google “Why did WTC7 collapse?” and the first site I came to was this site, Debunking 9/11. It appears to have a rebuttal to all the doubts made about the 9/11 investigation. And they seem as grounded in reason as the physicist did. I’ll be honest – I didn’t read it nearly to it’s completion – it could be total bullshit. But the reason why I edited this entry entirely is because my original post could be bullshit too. And so much like how Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Cartman say “I’m not touching this” when Timmy and Jimmy want to start a group called Crips, of people who have been crippled since birth, I am going to do the same thing about 9/11. I knew when I began writing this entry that facts are at best sketchy when it comes to this subject and clearly I am not motivated enough to try and decipher through half-truths and suppositions with people who are convinced about their own side even if they were presented with hard evidence against them.
I have things I want to write about that are rarely talked about but I consider important. The 9/11 investigation is not one of those things. And so I remove all opinion about the occurrences that happened on 9/11. I’m not just going to blindly accept that everything makes sense, because something tugs at me that it doesn’t, it just seemed too clandestine to be accurate – yet, on the other hand – what do I know? It could be as plain as ever and completely accurate as the Debunking 9/11 site claims.
So in conclusion to this confessional I’d like to say I don’t support a new 9/11 investigation. I also am not against a new one occurring either. I want to remove my opinion on this topic and retain my credibility that I’ve tried to attain through much more thorough investigations with this site. However, if YOU are interested in researching the truths, lies, mistruths, and suppositions behind 9/11 I’ve given you two opposing places to start. So enjoy.
I’d also like to say that I hope this is proof that I practice what I preach. That I will look into alternate viewpoints if you make a good-enough argument. And that I do truly pride myself on in-depth research. And that I can acknowledge when I am wrong. I want this site to be above my ego and even though this entry is a clear blight to me, at the same time it is better than it would’ve been had I left it in its original form.
