I think that the actual question here isn't so much the science--I am certainly not an expert in these scientific areas, neither are you, and probably neither is Vicious_Bomber, which means that we are all ultimately trusting someone more knowledgeable and informed than ourselves--but the conclusions we therefore draw.
Let's suppose we had total, incontrovertible, irrefutable proof that was totally obvious to everyone--everyone knew and agreed that the buildings had been bombed.
What then is the people with the proof would publish a scientific article, go on as many talk shows as possible, travel around the world doing seminars and radio shows, but ultimately still be ignored
( ... )
If everyone in the world agreed, there would be no more debate. The same would be true of a religion or any way of thinking if everyone agreed. The difference here is that I believe we do have undeniable hard facts that prove the buildings were demolished. I believe that the proof of demolition is as solid as the proof that the world revolves around the sun. But still, not everyone is going to agree. There are people who think Tupac is still alive or see Elvis in their toast, and there are still a few people who believe the world is flat. Even when murderers are convicted, there are some who believe their innocence in spite of the evidence. Even morals are up in the air, because while you and I believe it's wrong to kill someone, people die every day at the hand of those who believe killing is justified
( ... )
Comments 11
Let's suppose we had total, incontrovertible, irrefutable proof that was totally obvious to everyone--everyone knew and agreed that the buildings had been bombed.
So? What then?
Reply
Reply
Then what?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment