Reply #7: Intellectual curiosity doesn't equal answers [View All]

Right there, you're highlighting the issue, in fact. I'm in *favor* of intellectual curiosity. But, being curious doesn't mean that you have a theory to explain everything, or even anything.

For example - I'm pretty damn sure that a B757 with passengers did *NOT* hit the Pentagon. That's where my certainty ends. I haven't got the first clue as to what *did* hit the Pentagon, nor am I comfortable making any sort of guess. I just don't have enough evidence to make a compelling guess that fits with the facts. I'm willing to see, though, that the "B757 hits the Pentagon" theory doesn't fit with the facts either.

Another example - B757s hitting the two tallest steel skyscrapers in New York City caused them to collapse into their own footprint within hours of impact. I'm pretty damn sure that's, at best, the external viewpoint on what happened. I don't, however, believe that the impact of a B757 would have been sufficient to cause catastrophic, free-fall, fully vertical collapse of those buildings. What did cause the collapse? Shrug. Again - no clue.

Once you get past the desire to "know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened" (paraphrasing), all that's left are the unanswered questions and the, largely, unasked meta-questions. (Meta-questions being things like "Why don't we know what happened?" and "If the official theory doesn't fit the facts, why is it the official theory?")