Reply #35: Jesus, here we go again....

[SDuderstadt]

What do you think a poll like that says? BTW, I followed your link, but I'm having trouble finding the poll at that adress. For example, if 84% say they "don't buy the official story" (or wording to that effect), does that mean they believe in LIHOP or NIHOP? Hint: no. I take issue with the "official story" (whatever that is) because I believe the Bush administration has every reason to deflect criticism of their incompetence before, during and, especially, after 9/11. However, that doesn't mean I believe in either LIHOP or MIHOP, I certainly don't believe that a missile struck the Pentagon nor do I believe, for a moment, that any building at Ground Zero was brought down by controlled demolition.

I don't believe any study or commission 100% simply because they're bound to get some things wrong, no matter how good faith of an effort they undertook. In general, I believe that ASCE, NIST and other entities got it basically right, however, I accept their conclusions provisionally, meaning I think it's the best take, absent new findings of fact. In the meantime, I believe that two things really drive the goofier "truther" CT's: First of all, ANY large-scale catastrophic event, by definition, entails gaps, anomalies and conflicting accounts. Second, when combined with a (well-deserved)distrust of the Bush administration, this fuels some pretty far out theories, of which, a large number find their way here, despite their RW originsm something I find alarming for a progressive website.

As I have said before, if the truth movement has hard evidence of their claims, I'm all ears. Frankly, however, I am tired of being called a "dis-info troll", OCTabot or a "traitor" simply because I don't buy things without hard evidence.