it is difficult to judge because i listen to BOTH sides and on BOTH
sides there are arguments for their repsective view on the case. that
is obvious, or not? i heard this interview with the man who headed
the firemen that day (if i recall correctly) and he found it a shame
that people consider a conspiracy, which he saw as disrespect to
the families of the victims. and then there is this guy who came
out last, claiming his words were not properly represented in the
comission report. you have scientists on both sides. military people
on both sides. journalists. and so on and so forth. i would say
that this is undisputable, right?
so, even if there seems to be interpretations of all facts that
"connect together perfectly", that does not mean that such
interpretations are all correct. i hope you can agree with that.
it is like building trading systems. you can find parameter settings
that "connect ... perfectly" and are still ... random fluke. now do
not get me wrong. i am finding a fireworker, thus an experienced
person, who claims his testimony is not represented in any way
proper to the importance of the content of this very testimony,
an unacceptable situation.
other thing. i do not think a round table would end the discussions.
impossible, i mean some people are truly paranoid and some are
making money selling conspiracy spam. but it maybe would cut
down most of the doubts people like ourselves have. so it would
bring the doubter/believer ratio away from even ... in whatever
direction ...
