Not to be rude, but I've wasted far too much time on this nonsense already. I refuse to waste more by going point by point through your analysis, which I find entirely unscientific, illogical and the product of obvious bias.
I will, by way of example, look at one statement which I think is somewhat illustrative of the overall problem with your analysis. You state:
Quote:
|
What about the owner of the World trade center admitting that they blew up building 7?
|
That is not an accurate statement. As you noted in an earlier post, the owner of Building 7 in fact said that when he was advised of the status of the firefighting efforts in the building, he said "there's been enough loss of life" and then used the phrase that we should "pull it."
Some have argued that "pull it" is industry terminology meaning to demolish via explosives.
Here's the first problem: if the language used is ambiguous, and requires interpretation, its hardly an admission that "they blew up building 7."
Now, you also neglect to mention that, since making the statement, the owner of the building later explained that when he said "pull it," he was referring to the firefighting operation.
I have no doubt what your response will be - that he was pressured by the government to "retract" his earlier statement.
The problem there is that your argument becomes entirely circular. To prove the goverment is corrupt, you rely on a quote. To prove that the clarification of the quote is a lie, you ask us to presume that the government is corrupt. In other words, your hypothesis and the presumption that support it are one and the same.
All you have is an interpretion of an ambiguous statement regarding Building 7, which has been subsequently clarified. That does not convince me one bit that the terrorist attacks on the WTC were staged.
As I said, I'm not going to waste my time addressing each and every point you've tried to make. I have no doubt in my mind that there is a cogent response to each of them, but to go through such an analsyis is, in my mind, far more that this nonsense merits.
And I'm done with this topic.