Originally Posted by diggingdeeper
Congrats. It's certainly a long one.
I'm not making excuses, but in my few years here, I've engaged in and lurked over numerous discussions of these types. It all pretty much comes down to a simple request: please show evidence. Not evidence against something, but evidence for
it. Of course, debunking the "whatabouts" (as in "Well, whatabout this? Whatabout that?) that predominate in, say, the moon landing hoax debates can be jolly fun, but it ultimately gets frustrating in that it seems sometimes so many are ready to believe the most fanciful things rather than the simple. So I can see where long-time contributers here might be a bit testy when yet another Dread Pirate Conspiracy comes along like clockwork and, once again, it lacks proof.
If you propose that the destruction of 9/11/2001 was due to something other than what is commonly accepted, you must prove it, not just play at poking holes in other theories.
Who says anything is "unthinkable?" I don't. But that's hardly enough to hang one's hat on, much less a series of events such as what occurred on 9/11.
"Might be?" As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Please present your proof.
Calling something an "extraordinary" event colors it with dramatic overtones that may impede rational discussion.
As I suggested earlier in the thread, it ended up being catastrophic, but not so much as perhaps intended. Fanatics, no matter their origins, will strike out in unconventional ways in order to promote their cause. If 9/11 hadn't happened, something like it would've (as it did prior) eventually, and likely will again. (It could be argued that such events are ongoing, though some manage to be more headline-worthy than others, making 9/11 less "extraordinary" when viewed within the overall narrative.) In that way, the WTC destruction wasn't "extraordinary," except that it was visually spectacular and witnessed by so many, therefore making a significant impression.