The 9/11 Debate

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

I propose that we have a reasoned debate on 9/11 with rules.

Rule #1; We keep to one point at a time until both parties agree either one side has won the point or a stalemate is reached. Then we move on to the next point. A point would be something like, Molten Metal,Freefall speed, “Pull it”, collapse into its own footprint, etc. ALL points and arguments must be responded to before moving on. Each side takes a turn at determining what the new Point and new Subject is going to be.

Rule #2; All arguments must be supported by evidence and not rumors or hearsay.

Rule #3; There will be no time limit for responses. We must be reasonable about this though. We are all busy and there other matters that are more pressing, you know, like our Constitution hanging by a thread and all. I am not saying we can take months to answer but days or even a week or two to allow for Scout Camps and vacations etc. should be fine.

Rule #4; We stay to one subject at a time. For example; Building #7, or were missiles used instead of planes etc.

Any other suggestions for rules?

Since I started this debate I propose we begin with the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7. The first point I will allow those who believe that #7 was a planed collapse and brought down by explosives to choose.

SUBJECT # 1: WTC 7

POINT #1?

Future Subjects; Thermite, Twin Towers, Pentagon, Flight 93, any others?



Old Man Dalton

[clarkkent14captain of 1,000]

Point 1: World Trade Center 7 was reported to have collapsed before it actually happened... how did they know? I think this must have been leaked information from someone deciding to "pull it."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... ideos.html

*edit* From the website above:

I'm not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it's collapse is highly suspicious.

If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.

You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here.

1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.

2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected.

3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?

4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.

5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.'

Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.

Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage.

Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.

The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.

[clarkkent14captain of 1,000]

OMD,

Maybe a list of videos and websites would be useful...

I just watched a fantastic one earlier this week. 911 IN PLANE SITE: http://www.911inplanesite.com/

Loose Change
Fabled Enemies

[JasonI am a nobody!]

OMD,

Maybe a list of videos and websites would be useful...

I just watched a fantastic one earlier this week. 911 IN PLANE SITE: http://www.911inplanesite.com/

Loose Change
Fabled Enemies

Good one Clark!

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

From clarkkent14;
Point 1: World Trade Center 7 was reported to have collapsed before it actually happened... how did they know? I think this must have been leaked information from someone deciding to "pull it."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... ideos.html

*edit* From the website above:

I'm not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it's collapse is highly suspicious.

If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.

You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here.

1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.

2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected.

3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?

4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.

5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.'

Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.

Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage.

Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.

The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.

First off is everyone good on the rules?

Second, How about we call Point 1: There was prior knowledge to #7 collapsing. This proves that WTC 7 was prepped beforehand with explosives. (Using the above as exhibit a)

Is everyone good with this as the first point? I have no problem with it.


OMD

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Best 9/11 Video: '911 Mysteries' (this one hits most of the major need to know pieces of evidence and it also goes into great detail regarding the science and physics of it all). Very well done. I don't care for '911 In Plane Site' because it focuses too much on the 'pod' under the belly of the one of the planes as possibly shooting a missile into the towers. Silly IMO. 'Painful Deceptions' is a good one because of the science/physics aspect, but it's a little on the corny side (as far as its production) and too long. I would highly recommend watching any of the 9/11 exposes Steve (Dr. Jones) has done and especially anything produced by the fellows at www.ae911truth.org.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

I hope this is not an indication of how this debate is going to go. It reminds me of trying to herd cats.

I’ll repeat myself;

First off is everyone good on the rules?

Second, How about we call Point 1: There was prior knowledge to #7 collapsing. This proves that WTC 7 was prepped beforehand with explosives. (Using the above as exhibit a)

Is everyone good with this as the first point? I have no problem with it.

REMEMBER RULE #1

I need One Point and one point only otherwise we won’t get anywhere in this debate. So please keep to the rules and pick a 1st Point. Do you guys want to go with Clark Kent’s suggestion and my modification i.e., “There was prior knowledge to #7 collapsing. This proves that WTC 7 was prepped beforehand with explosives. (Using the above as exhibit a)”?

Please lets keep this debate organized.

Are you guys game?


Old Man Dalton

P.S. I have 10 kids and numerous grandkids so I have lots of patience. Never was successful at herding cats though. Cattle yes but not cats.

[Lone Star Patriotcaptain of 100]

Personally, I think that this debate has already taken place, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I'm not sure that this will bring us any where closer to agreement. It's fun, so anyone who wishes feel free. OMD, I'm not sure that prior knowledge and reporting the event prior are exactly the same thing. If you truly wanted to take Clark's point at face value, then take it at that. But that's just my lowly opinion. I also think it's easily explainable... Like, "oops we accidentally reported the wrong thing... We heard collapse inevitable and then got mixed up and reported collapse already happened...I guess we looked stupid when the building was still there... Ah gee... I guess everyone makes mistakes...."

It kind of reminds me of every answer the 9/11 commission came up with, "Wow, I guess we just made a bunch of bad mistakes... Oops... Oh well... we'll try to do better next time..."


So, that get's me back to the big picture, 9/11 has only served to advance the cause of Latter Day Gadiantons. If you ask the question, cui bono, then it leads you right down the path to the answers.

If you believe the official version of the story, then that is absolutely great!!!! Why waste an ounce of time debating people who believe otherwise? Simply focus your efforts on the Constitution. If you want, why not focus on how 9/11 has been used to destroy our Constitution. That would be a great cause worthy of any man's time. Besides, both sides agree that is the case, at least here.

Just my two cents! On the other hand, if those who question the official conspiracy are right, then their efforts will be highly rewarded when the truth comes out. There is no harm in any way of asking reasonable questions. In fact, the official conspiracy has left so many questions unanswered, I can't believe more people aren't demanding the truth. It also surprises me that there are so many government apologists, especially in this forum when we know that the scriptures testify of the Gadianton Robbers desire to take "sole control of government," which is exactly what 9/11 seems to have done.

To sum it up, I'm just not sure this thread will get us anywhere meaningful. I think we've already gone around this carousel plenty of times. If something new comes out, like a new paper, new evidence, fantastic, then we start a new thread and discuss it. Kind of like what has been done in another thread that is still active in this same forum.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Pictures speak louder than words...

911 pyroclastic flow.jpg (35.75 KiB) Viewed 768 times

WTC-pyro-flow-from-above.jpg (39.81 KiB) Viewed 768 times

[attachment=2]

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

This has been the problem of previous debates.

Col Flagg says a,b,c,d.

I respond to a,b,c,d.

Col Flagg, ignoring my response, says” Oh yea, what about e,f,g,h?”

This type of debate will get no where! That’s why I thought at least ONE of you guys would be game to a REAL debate with rules. This can only be done in a reasoned debate with one topic at a time. Like this:

Col Flagg says ‘a’.

I respond to ‘a’.

Col Flagg rebuts.

I rebut.

Next Point etc.

Anyone want to take up the challenge?


OMD

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Dalton, seriously... why do you want to engage in yet another 9/11 debate? You've already made your belief about it perfectly clear in many other threads contrary to all of the coincidences, evidence, scientific evidence and physics that blows the official story out of the water and then in defense of the official story from the Washington Mafia and mainstream media, you present junk science, conjecture and theory... nothing here is going to change your mind, so why waste more time on it? Quite frankly, how anyone at this point, considering all of the scientific evidence proving demolition of both towers and building 7, can still question or deny that three skyscrapers were demolished on 9/11... is extremely puzzling. Here's how scientists have approached 9/11 truth:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Debunkers do just the reverse... they say 'here's our conclusion... what can we come up with to support it'.

[Lone Star Patriotcaptain of 100]

OMD,

I do see your point. I guess I'm just not sure if setting "rules" will work. I've seen it before, for example I've seen larsenb ask specific questions, then to have others only bring up other points.

Here's what I think, if one is searching for the Gospel, or which church is true, where does one go? If one finds the LDS church, does one go to the Church of Christ to find out if the LDS church is true? What kind of answers do you think you'd get if you did that?

The same goes for 9/11 truth. Go to a debunking website and you're going to get what you're searching for. Go to the Journal of 9/11 Studies and you're going to find answers to your questions. Pray about it if you feel so inclined. If one wants to find out if the LDS church is true, one can pray about the Book of Mormon. If one has a testimony of the Book of Mormon, it would follow that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the church is true. One doesn't necessarily have to have a testimony of each thing, that can come with time.

I say, look at the big picture. Has the Constitution suffered as a result of 9/11? Who is it that has the power to weaken our Constitution? Is this important for us as members of the LDS church? I would say absolutely, as we know from our scriptures that the Constitution was inspired and given to us to protect our liberty.

This forum is great for discussing our insights, ideas and thoughts. Debating to prove one's position or point of view doesn't seem to have been particularly effective based on what I've seen these last several months.

That doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed our discussions. I mean seriously, who wouldn't enjoy discussing anything with an old coot.

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

My personal experience and testimony of being forewarned by a person employed by the intelligence community to get out of dodge before the stuff hit the fan, and being warned that if I verbalized her warning to me... I was warned and that person would "disappear" - and then it happened, because I mentioned I had been warned, is enough for me. It was an inside job. "They" (the bad guys) engineered it with the intent to put into play the ways and means to destroy this once great nation. They have succeeded. It smacks of more smoke and mirrors to psy-op us into debating things that don't matter. We were programmed to not question by having us watch with fascination over and over, the same thing until it was burned into our feeble brains.

We will still be "debating" this while we sit in some FEMA camp being pumped with genocide vaccines under NAU rule.

Like whether the pearly gates swing or slide; we'll probably find out that they do neither - and discover the way in is through a veil with sacred tokens and signs that really let us inside. Imagine that. Totally crazy, right?

I know the buildings did not go down because of kerosine fires or the weight of aluminum-skinned electronically-controlled drones. The buildings were helped with both micro-nuclear devices and high explosives that caused steel to be in molten form for weeks underground.

I also know those first responders in NYC paid with their lives through nuclear poisoning, respiratory cancers and that those who testified of seeing hearing and witnessing those explosions are no longer living, because of their testimonies.

There is no debate, just red herrings, straw men and wasted breath.

We need to defend the Constitution against the tyrant we now have as POTUS. Rise up, America! Rise up!

[clarkkent14captain of 1,000]

OMD,

Sorry... I tried! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWymXNPaU7g

The more I learn about 9/11, the more sure my understanding becomes. It was absolutely an inside job! I cannot wait for the Lord's documentary... 9/11 unveiled!

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

OMD,

Sorry... I tried! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWymXNPaU7g

The more I learn about 9/11, the more sure my understanding becomes. It was absolutely an inside job!

I cannot wait for the Lord's documentary... 9/11 unveiled!

I keep thinking the same thing, Clark.

OMD -- I understand you agree that high gov't officials knew that 9/11 attacks were coming and did not stop it... Is that correct?

[2BFreecaptain of 100]

May be what we should do is turn the table on the whole "debate" and begin with the "official" theory and see how IT stands up to scrutiny. Let's start with the 19 so called hijackers. Or we could look at the claims by NIST in their reports of the building collapses similar to the 14 points of agreement paper on the jornalfor911studies site. We always look at the alternative theories and attempt to support them or shoot them down when we should really shine the light on the original theory and see how it stands up to the light of real examination. Just an idea. What do you think.

[clarkkent14captain of 1,000]

2B,

I like that thought... I've been thinking a lot about this.

People look at me crazily when I say inside job... I tell them a few facts... they start to doubt their disbelief... then they ask, "Who could have pulled such a thing off? Do you think that the president did this?"

I usually ask if they have been to the temple... if yes...

I say, "you can buy anything in this world with money"

As eerie as it might be to do, I think we need to get into the heads of those who would benefit most. If you understand that those involved are globalists, NWO, and Satan's minions. How would they plot, what preparations would they have needed? Propose a theory of events... of plots. Maybe write it as a "fictional" book. or not, maybe we just leave it at that.

As much as I want this to be exposed, I can barely get my own family to look at the facts. It's a hard thing! This truth cuts you to the very center when you find out. I felt so stupid for buying the lie that I had been fed! It was like taking my first Physics class.... the world as I knew was suddenly turned on it's head! I couldn't believe it... then after some reasoning and thoughtful questions, it made sense.

I wish all of the great documentaries could be thoughtfully, and chronologically pieced together to tighten up the whole story that we know and understand. Each bring up some fantastic questions, and provide great evidence to the real truth. I think Silverstein needs to be investigated as much or more than anyone!

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

From My Friend Lone Star:
OMD,

I do see your point. I guess I'm just not sure if setting "rules" will work. I've seen it before, for example I've seen larsenb ask specific questions, then to have others only bring up other points.

Here's what I think, if one is searching for the Gospel, or which church is true, where does one go? If one finds the LDS church, does one go to the Church of Christ to find out if the LDS church is true? What kind of answers do you think you'd get if you did that?

The same goes for 9/11 truth. Go to a debunking website and you're going to get what you're searching for. Go to the Journal of 9/11 Studies and you're going to find answers to your questions. Pray about it if you feel so inclined. If one wants to find out if the LDS church is true, one can pray about the Book of Mormon. If one has a testimony of the Book of Mormon, it would follow that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the church is true. One doesn't necessarily have to have a testimony of each thing, that can come with time.

I say, look at the big picture. Has the Constitution suffered as a result of 9/11? Who is it that has the power to weaken our Constitution? Is this important for us as members of the LDS church? I would say absolutely, as we know from our scriptures that the Constitution was inspired and given to us to protect our liberty.

This forum is great for discussing our insights, ideas and thoughts. Debating to prove one's position or point of view doesn't seem to have been particularly effective based on what I've seen these last several months.

That doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed our discussions. I mean seriously, who wouldn't enjoy discussing anything with an old coot.

I can make the same analogy, Lone Star. How much will you learn about the Gospel of Jesus Christ if all you do is study from Islamic or Buddhist material? Not much.

How about you Lone Star, would you like to test your “Truth” against an ‘old coot’ like me? We have had great discussions before with no acrimony or hard feelings. My problem with some of my discussions with others is that the rebuttals we make to each other many times go unanswered or not responded to. I know that this can be frustrating to all involved because nothing is resolved. Most the time ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ go flying through the air like a giant food fight. All we end up with is a big mess. I have learned a few things and have concluded that some in government probably new in advance that planes where going to hit buildings in NY and DC. Are you willing, Lone Star or anyone else, to try and rebut some of my ‘reservations’ shall we say about the theories of the 9/11 Truther Movement?

Your Friend
OMD

Didn’t think it would be like to pulling teeth to get one of you guys to debate 9/11. Reminds me of a green hunter on opening day. See something with 4 legs and horns and they’re blasting away like its WW III.

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

OMD -- I understand you agree that high gov't officials knew that 9/11 attacks were coming and did not stop it... Is that correct?

If I were to identify the THREE TOP issues regarding 9/11, hmmm... I would suggest:

1. The lack of air defenses that day, particularly for the Pentagon in the light of testimonies from Sec'y Mineta (who was inside the PEOC and tells what Cheney did/did not do) and April Gallop (who was inside the Pentagon and received ZERO WARNING and was crippled). This lack of air defenses was the point of my question (above) to OMD.

2. The fall of WTC 7 at FREE FALL ACCELERATION for 2.25 seconds, which we got NIST to admit to so there is really no denying this fact. Free-fall MEANS that there was nothing in the way to impede the fall of the roof for over 100 feet. This in turn means that something moved the MASS of hundreds of thousands of tons of support columns and concrete out of the way of the falling roof. This in turn implies the use of EXPLOSIVES to move the mass out of the way so that free-fall acceleration could occur. Alternative means of moving the mass out of the way? I have not heard of ANY but would be interested in any alternatives to the use of explosives. In KNOWN explosive demolitions, the roof can fall at FREE-FALL acceleration.

3. The presence of active explosive/pyrotechnic material in the dust generated by the destruction of the WTC Towers.

I would be interested in OMD's response to these three outstanding issues (not just links to some mocking debunker site.)

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

OMD -- I understand you agree that high gov't officials knew that 9/11 attacks were coming and did not stop it... Is that correct?

If I were to identify the THREE TOP issues regarding 9/11, hmmm... I would suggest:

1. The lack of air defenses that day, particularly for the Pentagon in the light of testimonies from Sec'y Mineta (who was inside the PEOC and tells what Cheney did/did not do) and April Gallop (who was inside the Pentagon and received ZERO WARNING and was crippled). This lack of air defenses was the point of my question (above) to OMD.

It's amazing more questions about the Pentagon attack haven't been raised. Here's the command center for the U.S. defense department, one of the most secure and highly guarded buildings on planet earth, but a wayward airplane somehow manages to smash into it with allegedly rogue terrorists on board??? This could only have been accomplished if it was allowed to happen. Negligence... incompetence... sorry, no! Have you ever noticed how many video cameras every Wal Mart has? I'm sure well over 75 and they cover every aisle and angle in the store and parking lot, yet, at the Pentagon, the only video footage they have of the impact is from a security gate camera which shows grainy footage??? Right. There are even supposed to be mobile missile batteries located at certain points to defend against air attack... where were those? And why confiscate all video footage of the 'attack' from nearby gas stations, hotels, etc. if there is nothing to hide? The chances of a terrorist striking the Pentagon with a plane without inside help are about the same as a terrorist group gaining access as visitors to the White House.

2. The fall of WTC 7 at FREE FALL ACCELERATION for 2.25 seconds, which we got NIST to admit to so there is really no denying this fact. Free-fall MEANS that there was nothing in the way to impede the fall of the roof for over 100 feet. This in turn means that something moved the MASS of hundreds of thousands of tons of support columns and concrete out of the way of the falling roof. This in turn implies the use of EXPLOSIVES to move the mass out of the way so that free-fall acceleration could occur. Alternative means of moving the mass out of the way? I have not heard of ANY but would be interested in any alternatives to the use of explosives. In KNOWN explosive demolitions, the roof can fall at FREE-FALL acceleration.

When you discover who and what was in building 7, it begins to make sense why it was demo'd. There were three primary tenants in building 7... U.S. federal 'government' offices, banks and Wall Street investment houses. Hmm... haven't all three been involved in the trillion dollar bail-outs since last year? What a coincidence. And how convenient that all of the investigative case files involving money laundering, fraud and extortion between all three were destroyed when the building 'collapsed'? Talk about lucky.

3. The presence of active explosive/pyrotechnic material in the dust generated by the destruction of the WTC Towers.

Steve, it wasn't nano-thermite... just ask Dalton and Mark... they have an alternative explanation. You guys wasted a lot of time with the electron micropscopy analysis to try and determine what was in the dust as Dalton has already explained that elements needed for high-tech explosives came together naturally during the collapse to create the iron-rich spheres.

I would be interested in OMD's response to these three outstanding issues (not just links to some mocking debunker site.)

I don't enjoy mocking Dalton and Mark over this issue, but they leave you no choice with their absurd and futile attempts to explain away scientific evidence and facts.

[larsenbcaptain of 1,000]

Are you willing, Lone Star or anyone else, to try and rebut some of my ‘reservations’ shall we say about the theories of the 9/11 Truther Movement?

I for one have learned from direct experience, OMD, that pursuing a debate or honest rebuttal with you is rather difficult. You and I went round and round, for instance, on what Dr. Jones and Niels Harritt, et al., were saying in their Nano-thermite paper.

Even when I quoted the paper and explained again and again what the point of the paper was, you could never quite get it and overcome some of the fundamental misunderstandings you had regarding the paper, or admit where you were documentably wrong.

So for anyone out there who may want to enter into a 'debate' w/OMD, take this as a warning. Without saying any more, it IS guaranteed to suck up a LOT of your time, with questionable results.

Now if you were being paid for the amount of time you spend, or even by the word, or number of posts, maybe it would be worth it.

[larsenbcaptain of 1,000]

Steve, it wasn't nano-thermite... just ask Dalton and Mark... they have an alternative explanation. You guys wasted a lot of time with the electron micropscopy analysis to try and determine what was in the dust as Dalton has already explained that elements needed for high-tech explosives came together naturally during the collapse to create the iron-rich spheres.

Indeed. Good point, Col. OMD (and by association, Mark) were and probably still are fixated on this one.

[Scarecrowcaptain of 100]

I can make the same analogy, Lone Star. How much will you learn about the Gospel of Jesus Christ if all you do is study from Islamic or Buddhist material? Not much.

I think you missed Lone Star's point. But regardless, I'll take Larsen's advice and keep out of this debate except to say that all your questions, and then some, can be answered by watching the vid below from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. While there may be some details that are debatable, as there are some things that we may never know, much of what they say is irrefutable (IMO). Overall, it paints a crystal clear picture that not only did airplanes NOT bring down those towers, but that they were incapable of doing so, and that 9/11 was not just conducted by facists living in caves, but that there was some level of involvement by people in our government.

However, for me, the truth of 9/11 is just as much about discernment as it is anything else. And although it took me a number of years to come to terms with it, all the proofs, charts, testimony, and evidence, have only confirmed to me what I already knew just by watching the buildings fall and knowing what I know about the LDG's.

If you're still not convinced after watching this vid, or reading the numerous evidences given by Dr. Jones, then nothing I or anyone else can say will be of much use to you. Keep an open mind and good luck.

http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

I don't enjoy mocking Dalton and Mark over this issue, but they leave you no choice with their absurd and futile attempts to explain away scientific evidence and facts.

All I can say then is that you must be a masochistic Col. because you continue to do something that is so painful to you over and over and over again.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Food fight STILL going on.



OMD

Mark, I guess no one wants to have a debate, with rules starting, with WTC as the first subject. Oh well.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

They are afraid of you you old coot. You may be brittle but you are deceptively agile.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Are you willing, Lone Star or anyone else, to try and rebut some of my ‘reservations’ shall we say about the theories of the 9/11 Truther Movement?

I for one have learned from direct experience, OMD, that pursuing a debate or honest rebuttal with you is rather difficult. You and I went round and round, for instance, on what Dr. Jones and Niels Harritt, et al., were saying in their Nano-thermite paper.

Even when I quoted the paper and explained again and again what the point of the paper was, you could never quite get it and overcome some of the fundamental misunderstandings you had regarding the paper, or admit where you were documentably wrong.

So for anyone out there who may want to enter into a 'debate' w/OMD, take this as a warning. Without saying any more, it IS guaranteed to suck up a LOT of your time, with questionable results.

Now if you were being paid for the amount of time you spend, or even by the word, or number of posts, maybe it would be worth it.

It does pay dividends to keep the issue mucked up and the focus cloudy. Last thing they want is clear analysis and growing support for getting questions answered!

[larsenbcaptain of 1,000]

Food fight STILL going on.
OMD

Mark, I guess no one wants to have a debate, with rules starting, with WTC as the first subject. Oh well.

OMD, this is a bit disengenuous, in my view. I actually had such a discussion going on with ChelC on the 14 points paper. You jumped in with max food-fight firepower. It's what I've come to regard as your firehose, shotgun technique backed up by argument-by-hyperlinks.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

I don't enjoy mocking Dalton and Mark over this issue, but they leave you no choice with their absurd and futile attempts to explain away scientific evidence and facts.

All I can say then is that you must be a masochistic Col. because you continue to do something that is so painful to you over and over and over again.

I have been known to bonk my head against the wall when I do something stupid.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Food fight STILL going on.

Where? I want in.

OMD

Mark, I guess no one wants to have a debate, with rules starting, with WTC as the first subject. Oh well.

Dalton, are you saying the last several months of going back and forth on this issue with you hasn't been a debate?