Quote:
Originally Posted by Static
I was kinda thinking the same thing. I dont understand why all of a sudden after the attacks all the eyewitness accounts were considered to be unreliable because none of them were 'experts' in the fields of engineering or physics... Someone see's something, they report it, of course there's room for error, just like anything that's related to being human, but I would argue that 1 eyewitness account is more reliable than what some government spokes person spits out in some press conference, especially if that individual is associated with the Bush administration. These people do not have alternate agenda's, there would be no reason for them. The administration on the other hand does, that's why their explinations are questionable.
|
Couldn't of said it better myself.
It was the eyewitness testimony compiled in 9/11 Mysteries (a video) that really made me wonder about all this being true. Up until then it was all kind of fantasy that all seemed strangely compelling, but a bit spotty. That video has more first-hand testimony than any other "documentary" I've seen. It's something anyone interested in the subject of 9/11 truth should watch, on either side of the argument.
But anyway, ask any cop how to find out information, and they'll tell you to QUESTION WITNESSES, yet we believe our own government's report over the accounts of many first hand witnesses to the massive attack.
Anyway, watch the video. I've included it for the convenience of anyone who is too lazy to do a google video search.
911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demolitions (Full - 1ed.)