@someone_else_again Said
I suppose the only difference between your PoV and mine is that I felt it was
always an emotional argument. No straying involved.
I
think (it's been a while so I could be wrong) that my whole issue with this is when people throw it out there as fact but then completely discount eye-witness accounts or deny that people died. Those people who witnessed it or lost people are basically being called liars and that has no place in debate.
I understand your perspective, and yes, there I would tend to agree that if multiple, unrelated individuals all state the same thing, then how can they all be telling the same lie. It doesn't make sense. I think the problem arises when there is a large number of unrelated testimonies which are both For the argument and Against the argument. Then who do we declare truthful? If 30 people said they saw a plane fly into the Pentagon and 29 said they saw a missile fly into the Pentagon, we're going to offend someone no matter what choice we have. At that point, I think its best to simply look at what proof and indisputable facts we have and can work with to redraw the scenario.
My problem with the chain of events isn't so much the testimonies of people who where there, rather it is with claims that don't follow facts. One of my biggest problems was with the metallurgy involved in the investigations of 9/11 and the physics/chemistry behind what happened and what should happen. I never doubted for a moment that an aircraft flew into the Twin Towers, but what I did doubt was other things, yet when I questioned them, I'd get nothing but tirades of gibberish and pseudo-patriotism. It reminded me of something on of my old Army friends used to say a lot. If you want to get away with murder, just wrap the body up in the flag