Email Exchange with a 9/11 truther - Dave Sorensen - Blogs

Over the past few weeks, I have had an email exchange with a true believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, amongst many others. Initially his concern was with some of the content or lack of on this website, but soon the conversation branched off into about a million other things including Bush bloodlines and the Rockefellers. I tried my best to address his claims about 9/11 conspiracy theories but in the end failed to convince him. The purpose of posting this exchange here and not in the hate mail section is to highlight all of the logical fallacies and the absurd reactions to conflicting evidence one encounters when debating a true believer in conspiracy theories. One may read on with a sociological lens, or like I expect many to do, read on for entertainment. The article begins with my response of a "note" Sean wrote about the CS website. It may be hard to follow at first, but the note itself really goes all over the place with that familiar "just asking questions" style. It then continues to follow the email exchanges, some of which will be in their entirety. The text in green are his words. Here is that exchange.

Dave: To start off I'd like to you to consider you the possibility that most of what you've read about 9/11 and the other conspiracy theories is false. I'm not telling you what sources to believe or how to think, but to just keep in mind that you are human just like me, are prone to many biases and are defensive about your own beliefs like anyone else. Admitting that you've been wrong and that much of what you currently believe is also wrong is one of the best things a true skeptic could admit. The trouble is not knowing which beliefs we hold are false. As for your post...
"My name is Sean. I was wondering why your conspiracy-busters site does not allow comments. Are you telling me that you "screen" your callers, so the speak (you know, the same technique that makes talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity look like geniuses)??"
I'm all for allowing constructive criticism. But most of the time I just hear a series of easily answerable questions and arguments from personal incredulity. Edward's "Hatemail" section provides one with dozens examples of such responses. There is the CS facebook group and a forum to discuss corrections. If you are logged in, you can even leave comments below the articles. I'm willing to discuss any one point at a time, but typically I will be bombarded with a fallacious "proof by verbosity" argument. In young earth creationism debates, proponents will deliver a shotgun like approach to argumentation in which the skeptic will only be able to give meaningful answers to one or two of the claims, whereas the creationist makes 10. In the minds of the true believers, the claims that are not discussed or refuted are thought of as valid points. I will address many of the points you've raised, (not all of them...) and show why I find them to be invalid. None of the conspiracy theory claims I've looked into have held up to careful scrutiny. It's important to be skeptical of not just the government but of all sources. This includes internet documentaries and conspiracy websites.
"You may or may not be affiliated with a political party, but the agenda is obvious."
What is the agenda exactly? Like I mentioned before, I try to be as objective as I can but am limited in some ways because of things like confirmation bias etc. (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney )I look into each claim to see if they are accurate or make sense. Accepting the claims of zeitgeist or loose change at face value is no different than accepting the claims of the mainstream media or Oprah at face value. You would then be just picking and choosing things that fit in to your worldview. In order to better understand what happened, it would be wise to read up on both sides of the argument. The best I can do is to make sure my scholarship is sounds and that my logic is valid. From my experience very few conspiracy theorists have read the documents they cite as evidence for their theory, or have a grasp of the criticisms provided by skeptics, scientists and "debunkers".

"In other words, finally we have the ability to hear news outside of the three major networks; finally a film dares to ask questions that nobody dare ask before. However, instead of discussing it in an open forum, he writes a piece in which his only goal was OBVIOUSLY to convince people it is false, and does so with truly paper thin arguments....... without taking questions!!!!"

We have thousands of blogs from other independent scientists and researchers, podcasts, peer reviewed literature and media from dozens of other countries. There are tons of good sources out there, and not one should be treated as gospel.
"Oh, btw...we've been pretty lucky to have dodged another attack for a decade now! Surely you would think Al QUEDA would want to capitalize on the heels of such a major blow, right? Any fighter will tell you that when your opponent is wobbled, like an animal who smells the blood of its enemy, it is time to pounce."
I suggest you read Michael Scheuer's book on Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden's goal was pretty much to draw us into Afghanistan to lead us to an eventual economic collapse. He also believed that they could defeat us in a similar fashion to the Russian and British armies. Before 9/11 there were three other attacks that aimed to draw us into Afghanistan. The two embassy bombings and the USS cole bombing.

You ask a lot of questions that have been answered, and have been available online for years. 9/11 myths.com and Mark Roberts' website (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ ) have a lot of great links for info on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The key is to actually read through these websites. You raised the point that you haven't seen any other plane crashes that looked like flight 93. Here is an example of one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/
Even without this example, you have to ask what other time has a plane crashed into soft soil around 500 mph?
"Then, please have him explain how the third WTC building fell, blocks away, half a day later, while buildings between them remained untouched. "

This isn't true. There are videos showing large chunks of debris hitting building seven. Building Six had a 4 story partial collapse, and several other buildings were so damaged they had to be taken down afterwards.
Building 7:I will agree that on first look without any context, edited videos of the collapse of building seven looks like a CD. (Though it sounds nothing like one... ) But logical problems arise when you try to think of a motive for blowing up a building hardly anyone has heard of hours after being on fire. I have an article on CS about this very point. This doesn't bother most truthers as they will often say something like "who cares why they did it, they just did it!" The quickest way to understand the collapse of building seven is to look at another building that collapsed from fire.

"Also please show me a building that has ever collapsed in history, from something other than a detonation, that fell onto itself perfectly at free fall speed." *Correction: They didn't collapse at free fall speed!"

Ok.. how about the Delft University Building in Holland. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCAQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveleak.com%2Fview%3Fi%3Dff1_1210707903&ei=vajsTeqBFKji0QH_stmYAQ&usg=AFQjCNGwNKZ9-dw4Cl1GxDT75Le_AJukTQ
They look quite similar. While it is not 47 stories like Building 7, it's 13 stories and collapsed from fire alone. You also have to ask yourself "what would a building collapse look like?" Some have suggested the building should have fallen over like a tree, but this is a scientific question. This is a scientific question that has an answer. The answer is that the path of least resistance is straight down. In France, there is a demolition technique called Verinage. Check out some of the videos on youtube. The collapses are initiated by a "crushdown" effect similar to the collapse of the towers.

"First of all, there would be resistance at EVERY floor. That means it would have been momentarily stopped 120 times, especially early in the collapse. "

There is going to be some resistance, but the floors were not designed to hold weights in excess of 3 times the static weight. When you have several floors collapsing, the force increases by several times due to gravity. In the case of the towers, the weight coming down was about 30 times the static weight. For example, when you place a 15 pound weight on your foot, you won't feel any pain. But when you drop it from twelve feet, you foot is pretty much destroyed. The best way to think of this is to imagine the collapse as 30 floors vs. 1 floor. After that floor collapses you have 31 floors vs. 1 floor etc. The bottom part of the structure is not just a hunk of steel, it's made of millions of small parts capable of failing due to excess weight. If a critical column or structural component of a building fails due to fire, you can get partial or total collapses. If you acknowledge this point there's nothing strange about the collapse. It was on fire for seven hours without firefighting and was seen with a large bulge around 3 pm by several structural engineers using transits. Also the fires started on multiple floors, unlike most office fires which would just start on one. The collapse was also a progressive one. The east penthouse collapsed first. Overall the collapse took around 16 seconds. NIST did an extensive state of the art investigation into the collapse of building 7. Have you read any of it?
"How about the perfectly diagonal cut through what remained as the stub of the infrastructure?"
This was done post collapse by a clean up crew. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

"Or did each side burn through to give way at the exact same moment, thus causing an uncanny symmetrical collapse?"
The collapse was not symmetrical. It actually fell across the street damaging a bank to the point where it was feared it too might collapse .http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911d.htm

"I would love to see somebody build a scale model of the scene and re-enact the alleged tragedy in a controlled environment, but for now I'll stick with common sense."
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Why would they have to build a physical model of the structure and fly a plane into it when you can do computer models? These have been done and show that everything is consistent with the videos. This includes a computer simulation created by an engineer who was skeptical of the collapse initiation hypothesis offered by NIST. (But not a supporter of CD) http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/
"The list goes on and on, but please keep in mind that I have absolutely no motivation other than the truth."
I hope you really mean this. As for the "list" you speak of, I suggest reading my article which goes into the "long list effect." http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/2010/05/23/conspiracism-explained/ Once you realize nearly all of the claims are false, your position becomes untenable. It is this that is the difference between us. I reject all of your premises, and can tell you why. If you can show where I went wrong, by all means do.
"I'm getting tired, and I'm not sure Winston will read this because it doesn't agree with his beliefs"
This is pretty funny. I think Edward is aware of every claim you've made in this post. If you think you've come up with some new arguments, you must be living in the year 2004. Try googling "X debunked" or browsing the jref forums. This is all really old, and has been debunked ad nauseam.

"THIS WAS NOT SOME ROGUE ACT BY A TERRORIST BECAUSE THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!!"
This I agree with. Again Michael Scheuer gives six reasons for why extremist groups hate us.

""An anti-U.S. defensive jihad was mandatory for six reasons:
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Prophet's homeland on the Arabian Peninsula
2. Washington's protection and support for tyrannical Muslim governments
3. Washington's unquestioning and unqualified support for Israel
4. Washington's support for countries that oppress Muslims, especially Russia, China, and India
5. U.S. and Western exploitation of Muslim energy resources at below market prices
6. The U.S. military presence in the Muslim world outside the Arab Peninsula"

There are a lot of great books available that answer all of your questions and put them into context. If your interested I suggest reading "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" for starters. The challenge for you is to be willing to reject your current beliefs based upon new information and more reliable evidence. This is the rational thing to do. In my opinion, Conspiracy theories work in the exact opposite way. They rely upon the least reliable evidence (anomalies, quote-mining, junk science) and ignore what the vast majority of academia and what the consensus of relevant scientists has to say.

Excerpts

"I thank you for taking the time to acknowledge my post, but I am afraid your arguments are set out to debunk a film, rather than seek truth. "
If I weren't interested in the truth I wouldn't take the time to study this stuff. The point I cannot stress enough is that you are still convinced that a lot of these claims are correct. I hate to think of this as picking sides of a fence...
"A commission appointed BY BUSH himself, comprised of his political pals. The fact that these three have controlled American politics for over three decades. These are the things I am concerned with. Real life things, not a point-counter-point."
I think there is a big misconception about the 9/11 commission. They got their information from over 93 different agencies, almost half of were nongovernmental. There were thousands of experts and forensic scientists who studied the evidence extensively. The commission was not just Bush and his buddies making stuff up. There was four years of independent and governmental investigations that were brought together to form the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report. Just out of curiosity, have you read it?

"I told you that from 2001 to around 2006, I was a staunch Bush supporter. At one point, I told my mother that he will go down as the greatest president in history. I had to eat a lot of crow when i admitted that I was blind. "

I understand this. I think our political beliefs generally sway us into other belief systems. To say Bush was a bad president is one thing, to say he took part in the conspiracy of the century without any supporting evidence is another. I think Michael Shermer said it best. The best reason to doubt that Bush did 9/11 was that it worked. : )

"And regarding your claim that I've raised points that are innaccurate or false, again, my information comes from wikipedia, so if you believe that wikipedia delivers false information, that is a different argument."

There's nothing wrong with using wikipedia as source, as long as its coming from the secondary or primary source. The wiki article itself could be inaccurate, but must of the time they're pretty good. The parts I thought were inaccurate I addressed, and those are not on wikipedia. Some points you made I agreed with such as the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the extremist groups do not hate us because of our freedom fries. And just to clarify I am not a very big supporter of our system of government, or the people who run it. If there was evidence for any of these grand conspiracies I would pick them up and run with them. And so would all of the big US critics such as Noam Chomsky. Chomsky's take on 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc

"Weell, certainly, you mean every floor. That's over a hundred floors! lol So, mathematically speaking, it COULD NOT fall at free fall speed."

None of the buildings did fall at free fall speed. Even the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth have dropped that claim. Now their big anomaly is that Building 7 was in for free fall for 2.1 seconds. I don't think I was very clear about the crushdown effect. Did you see the verinage demolition videos? They work by pulling out structural members with cables, causing the upper portion of the building to crush the bottom half. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

"What about symmetrically? Do you not see this? You can not say, "there would be SOME resistance, BUT....." That's it. There would be resistance, hence adding time to the 10 second free fall, yet that was not the case. the building was detonated. Period."
They didn't collapse symmetrically. They all ended up hitting surrounding buildings, severely damaging them. Both the towers tilted before collapse. To see this very clearly, watch this video. It shows the perimeter columns bowing to the point of buckling. http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/34/bMZ-nkYr46wYoure making a bald assertion there when you say the buildings were detonated period. There is no evidence of loud explosions on any audio or video or seismographs, no cases of deafening or blast lung which we would expect, no fatalities from flying glass, and no evidence of detonation cords or bombs in the rubble. If there were bombs in the trade center buildings people would have been able to hear them from about a mile and a half away. Here is what a demolition sounds like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related

You don't have to take my word for it but I've looked at both sides of the argument and have concluded the CT claims are pretty much all wrong. There was no conscious effort to try to believe the official story. And I'm pretty well read on the conspiracy theory literature. I just honesty don't find any of it compelling. That isn't to say that there aren't real conspiracies out there. (There are!) I came to my position after carefully evaluating both the quality and context of the long list of conspiracy claims, which took a while. I highly recommend reading through the debunking sites I posted, and to check out some of the videos when you get the chance. There's a lot to learn and "unlearn" so by all means take your time. I used to believe in some of this stuff too, so I understand where you're coming from. But in all seriousness it's important to read up on both sides of any debate, if your looking for truth. While it may be painful to spend hours reading material you may not agree with, it's important, and gives you a better understanding for how thinking can go wrong.

"So, you will continue using the word "Conspiracy Theorist," a blatant tactic of propagandist throughout history."

I don't think this is always a pejorative term. It's taken to be offensive to people who believe some of the more plausible conspiracy theories because they are lumped in with the nutty ones. I agree it says nothing at all about a person's actual beliefs, but it's the same with the word "debunker." I usually switch between "true believers" and "Cts". I am simply referring to some one who believes in a conspiracy theory. A great definition of a conspiracy theory is given by Oxford philosopher Steve Clarke.
"A theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society."

"They do dirt, questions are raised, the pretend they are "investigating" it using their political buddies, slowly we forget about it, the book is closed, and anyone who doesn't buy it is called a Conspiracy Theorist or a Bush-Basher. Same playbook, Dave."

But the 9/11 commission was largely based on dozens of other investigations. Including books by investigative journalists, scientific reports and thousands of other investigators who have looked into the backgrounds of the hijackers, the collapse of the towers etc. I think you're point goes both ways. I can be called a sheep or a shill for accepting the "official story." It's not about accepting one view or the other, it's about understanding the difference between a strong and weak theory, and which one describes the theory at hand. But in order to criticize one side or the other, you need to understand what they actually believe.

This reminds me of a point you raised in a previous email.

"pointing me toward books is meaningless to me, because there are books that both conflict and support what I am saying. There are talented writers and spin-meisters for both sides. "

Are you saying it's too difficult to tell whether someone is being honest? All you have to do is check their sources, or see if their work is corroborated by other evidence or scholars.
9/11 CT advocate David Ray Griffin is a great example of someone who writes well, but when you fact check him, you realize he's either an incompetent researcher or a liar. For instance, he claims that there were no muslim names on the passenger manifests. What is his source? A "9/11 victims list" from CNN.com. Now around that time the Boston Globe had released the passenger manifests with all of the hijacker's names on them. How is it that Griffin has failed to acknowledge the Boston Globe article all of this time, while also ignoring criticism of his book pointing out that he was not referring to the source he claimed to have been?

"Nobody wants to believe such heinous things."
I actually disagree with this. There are a lot of people I have spoken to who believe 9/11 was an inside job, who really do want to believe it because they feel like they possess secret knowledge, and that everyone else is just sheeple. Like I said before I have no dog in this hunt, and have believed in some Cts before. A lot of what Noam Chomsky discusses in terms of government and military conspiracies, is far worse than 9/11 being an inside job. He said in an email chat with Kevin Barrett that even if 9/11 was an inside job, it wouldn't make it in the top 100 atrocities list. So I don't think this is a valid reason for why people debunk things in most cases. In most cases people debunk things because they don't think there's any validity to the claims they are debunking, and they explain why that it is so.

"I am very familiar with being blinded by your ideals, which in this country, in this age, are very much pre-determined by us and molded by propaganda at a level beyond expert. They mold our brains like play-doe."

I agree with this. John Loewen summarizes all of the myths and problems with the American history curriculum in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me." Our history textbooks all portray the US as the good guys, omit a lot of the horrendous things we did (ex. our interactions with the Native American), generally tell the story from the perspective of a white christian male, and gets kids to memorize "facts" instead of building critical thinking skills. I think the lack of a course on critical thinking for the high school level is the biggest problem with our education system. We are also heavily influenced by the mainstream media like you said. If you haven't done so already you should watch Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. It's still on google video.

"Are you not suspicious of Dick, George, and Don?"
Well.. they're politicians. I'm skeptical of all politicians and what they say. That isn't to say that they lie about everything. We know Bush and his gang lied about the WMDs so it is not inconceivable that they lied about other things. The reason we know about this is because of the leaked manning memo.

But I think the Bush Administration was inarguably one of the most incompetent, so there is a heavy burden of proof to be met when one claims they managed to pull off a rather large scale conspiracy. If they couldn't just plant WMDs in Iraq, how could they manage to coerce thousands of people into orchestrating 9/11?

"And after holding three of the top positions of power in the world for the better part of four decades, do you honestly question the ability of these men to orchestrate 9-11?? Are you serious? Danny Ocean could pull that off, Dave. Those three men could rearrange the seasons if they wanted too, Dave. They could even make their kids president!"

I have to ask this again. If they could pull off 9/11, why not just plant WMDs in Iraq. That would involve far less people, and would much a million times less risky. Would benefit them greatly. Unless presented with some evidence, I find it really hard to believe that the Bush Administration orchestrated the attacks. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I also find it hard to believe that any group would be dumb enough to take such risks. All it would take is to have one detonation cord discovered, or one of the demolition guys telling his girlfriend what he was doing.

I have yet to even hear a coherent narrative to how they would have even done it. There is an absence of evidence that would have to be there, you'd have thousands of people who would have to silenced for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, we have a convergence of evidence that shows who the real perpetrators were and a coherent narrative to how they did it. I think the big problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they do not take into account the history of US and middle east relations. We can speculate all we want about what happened, but it won't get us to the truth. If one rejects what virtually all scientists and scholars agree on, and reject in wholesale everything the government says, you are just going to wind up chasing down rabbit holes. And this brings up another point.
If 9/11 was an inside job, we are left with two scenarios. Either they (US) did it and covered it up. Or they did it and left behind incriminating evidence. If A, then we can't really do anything about it, they got away with the perfect crime. If B, I'm all for exposing them. Bringing up past examples of suspicious behavior or even some valid points about political figures that I agree with is not going to say anything about what happened on 9/11. What you're doing is just asking questions. We're far past that stage, it's been 11 years. There are answers, they're just not as appealing as a bombs being planted by cia agents, voice morphing etc. The reality is we got caught with our pants down. And all it took was the purchase of nineteen plane tickets with months of prep work on how to take over the planes.

"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."

I've been over the zeitgeist movies for a while now. Most of my articles are about specific claims and CTs, not about the zeitgeist movies. They are as inaccurate as they ever were and don't care too much about them. I would actually say it's closer to 90% of the info is inaccurate.
It seems like you misunderstand my position. I don't doubt that the government and military have carried out conspiracies in the past. Noam Chomsky is someone I believe exposes a lot of them, most worse than 9/11. (In terms of fatalities) For example, our support for the atrocities committed in East Timor during the 70's and onward.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--.htm

I don't present Chomsky's take on East Timor as fact, but bring it up as a example of a conspiracy I find somewhat plausible, that is worse in scale than 9/11.

What I doubt is strictly the points I bring up in the Zeitgeist movies. (nearly all of them) This says nothing about my views about our foreign policy or government. It says nothing else about me in general. All I care about is what's true. And the best I can do at finding it, is making sure my scholarship is sound, and that my logic is valid. Looking at both sides of the debate, I've found that the books and articles which argue for a government conspiracy lack the kinds of scholarship you would expect, and are largely illogical. For instance, if we wanted to get into Iraq and Afghanistan for oil, why not make the hijackers come from those countries? The choice of hijackers from Saudi Arabia makes no sense.

Sean's response in its entirety:

"I ask you again, don't seek out to debunk a stupid movie. I will hand you one half of that movie, ok? Let's say I looked it all over and I admit right now that the film was overzealous in their presentation of certain facts and were not totally accurate on some of the quotes, dates, figures, facts, and there were a few things they presented that were not completely corroborated and may very well have been false."

OH no, Dave Don't blatantly cut my quotes out of context now. Finish what I said there.

Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works.

I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?

Are you telling me that the same handful of men owned the white house and all of its dealings, including the initiation of their own central bank, simply "stepped down" at some point?? When?? And is it not a coincidence that they are back in charge in the year 2000? Or do you deny that the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld family lines trace RIGHT BACK TO The Kights Templar, or to keep it less CT, 12th century England?

If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld)

I have to go and there's no sense continuing if you don't see the obvious.

I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world.

Dave's response

"OH no, Dave Don't blatantly cut my quotes out of context now. Finish what I said there.

Such actions, like qouting out of context show your agenda. It is the same reason you abbreviate CT, because it is used so much. You have stuck religiously to your talking points, all of which I have already seen on your site. I want you to answer my questions, not fit your 9-11 debunking where it works."

There is really no agenda, but I guess I understand your point on that quote. If you read my full response, you would see I addressed those points later on. My analyses of the Zeitgeist films and 9/11 Cts are of just that. I have never written an article about George Bush, Big Oil or anything about the evil bloodlines. By default, you assume I reject all of it because I take fault with what I've written about. Why is that? I have yet to make any assumptions about you, and have not even referred to you as a CT. And BTW I explained why I use the abbreviation CT, and that I do not define it as "crazy person." It shouldn't be such a big deal. If you take it as an ad hominem attack, ignore it and deal with the other points I make.

"I want to know WHEN THE ANGLO's WHO SIGNED THE DECLARATION AND WHO OBVIOUSLY CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR FIRST CENTURY WITH 6 guys ENDING WITH jOHN QUINCEY ADAMS (interesting, huh? that the son of a founding father would be elected?
When did they relinquish autonomy in the white house and allow an african american nobody to control things?"

Again, you are just asking questions. You contacted me to ask about how you can add corrections to the articles on CS, and now we are talking about bloodlines and george bush's past. Neither of which are covered on CS, and neither of which are relevant to the criticisms of other theories.

"If you want to be honest, the bloodlines go back to ancient Egypt (King Ramses (alternate spelling of rumsfeld) "
This is pretty interesting if true, but I couldn't find a source for this.

"I dont care about an independant film. I want to talk Bush-Windsor. founding fathers, Anglo Protestent rule, and democracy. Let's talk that and how inconcievable it is that these men manipulate the world."

Ok so we are done talking about the material covered on CS?

Sean's post in it's entirety:
OK, Dave, I understand being young and pasionate about politics. You are much smarter than I who voted for Ross Perot at 21, and this is the first and last time I will mention your age, because it doesn't mean anything except, in MOST cases a person's politics at a young age is usually the opposite of what it ends up. Also, I mention that because part of the reason I'm doing this, besides looking for the truth, is because you can still change. I'd never crack an older person like my mother. lol (I try)
Ok, take your time, but one more thing. Let me put everything in perspective for you. This is not conspiracy vs. no-conspiracy. I'm am right down the middle, with NO partisan agenda whatsoever (especially since they dont exist), it just so happens that the conspiracy side has been going strong for about three years now, and I am at the point where the burden of proof is on the debunkers.

As I watched the film (again haha I cant get enough) with my brother-in law who, up to a few months ago was a hard-lined conservative who told me that I should be in a tin-foil hat when I mentioned these films, and who now invited me to watch a new film, simple looked at each other and laughed. It was funny, but maddening, hysterical, but disturbing; it was all of these things, but never did we think it was uncertain. This is a matter of fitting a square into a triangle....

So, anyway, do what you gotta do. This would be impressive. I'm not sure how we could score it, but let's see if it makes it out of the edit room first.

OH wait, your questions. I'm sorry. Whistle-blowers? I could probably gather about 20 if I had a second, but off the top of my head, umm, Wesley Clark....hey wait a minute, Dave. Why does this sound familiar? Dave, are you using talking points, Dave? I'm sorry, man, but I am being to see a white spy vs. black spy going on. I'm trying to be neutral and you are hitting me with talking points, or should I say hot button topics. lol
Come on, Dave....OK since the answer to that question is everywhere, I'll pick the first place I see and give you that list. I'm sure I knew many of them already.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17961

and the strongest piece of evidence? How much time you got, buddy? (quick DaveChapelle) No, seriously, I don't want to ruin anything for you so I'll say numbers one through thirty (1-30) are on the film you are going to watch. Beyond that off the top of my head:
and in no particular order-

-the look on George Bush's face when they whispered in his ear that morning, a morning which he prayed would not happen, but like Jesus on that last night in Jerusalem, knew it would. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.....so, yeah, the close-up of him in high def.

-while we're on George W (poor kid) and that seven minutes in front of the kids....that seven minutes in front of the kids. Totally inexcusable. (Although, like I said, I almost feel bad for GW.)

-and I promise to leave him alone after I lump together the buckets full of misspeaking, fumble words, saying obviously rehearsed things, looking as nervous as a whore in church, as if he stood to get a beating for f---ing up. OK that's it for Little George, as Saddam Hussein called him, and rightfully called him. Is it odd for your dad's good to call you little ---------?

-- One more Bush thing. The fact that he insisted on taking questions from congress only with uncle don and not recorded and no hard questions....etc lol All of these concrete things glued together by the crystal clear body language of all involved, from Ari Fleesher to the head of FBI with the big cartoon face who got canned quickly, and of course, GW, who all but had a sign up saying My father made me do it! I just want my baseball team back. I can't wait for this eight years to be over. My dad's gonna set me up and.........lmao Dave, I wish that were more of a joke.

-Of course there is all the stuff I talked about with those three family crests and their power. That too, reads like a child's encyclopedia as to what is going on.

-Now, all of those things are heavy claims that I know to be true, but everyone has to find their way. However, more physical proof, that is there for all to see include
--The disappearing airlines at two crash sites. I have not see as much as a seat, or one of those rolse royce engines that are 8 feet in diameter.

-the pictures of the pentagon-----where do I start??

--the fact that the pentagon is one of the most secure building in the world, supposedly, with security camera lining the entire circumference, yet there is only ONE surveillance camera, and it just happens to have the wrong date, but forget that end piece, one camera, out of a hundred or more. There was ONE other tape, a gastation across the street but FBI officials were there immediately to confiscate it.

---Did I say pictures at the pentagon? and in Shanksville.

--Odd report made in cincinnati and put on their website that a plane had an emergency landing in cleveland due to a bombthreat, flight 93.

--hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses, there on the scene or shortly after claiming the heard explosions going off down the building as they ran down. Hundres on the scene or shortly thereafter who claim that it definitely was not a commercial airliner.

---Every photo or video taken of the scene, either showing a mysterious shape under the belly of the plane, from all angles, and it's uncanny resemblence to an armed military plane. The flash of light obviously seen before the impact, from all angles,

--Oh sorry George---there was only one tape that had caught the first impact at all on video. It was a french film group doing some little thing on the NYC fire fighter coincidently, when it happened they got it. It wasn't seen until later, yet George Bush says clearly, in response to what he thought when he saw the footage, "I remember seeing that first plane hit and thought......"

--The 911 comission being a joke from the start. (believe me, I was there during the whole thing. It was a joke.)

--Bush=oil=Bin Laden=Saudis

--The owner of the building 7 stating that they made the decision to "pull" the building, meaning it was rigged with devices.

--The symetrical free fall collapse of the towers.

---Did I mention the pics of Shankesville and pentagon? Also the manuever that this pilot would have had to make being a poor to moderate flyer.

---The molten steel at the bottom of the scene that was omitted.

--The blatant suppression of news.

---Building 7

--NORAD blunders

--lack of evidence that Osama Bin Laden did it. In fact, much less evidence that Osama did it then THEY did it.

----I could write until morning, but all of that, plus that film, plus the fact that I know this is a government capable of decimating people, countries, and races without blinking an eye.

(The above is a perfect example of a "proof by verbosity)

My response

Here are two sites to look over about the pentagon claims: http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Whistleblowers
Note that none on that list had direct knowledge of a conspiracy on 9/11. The closest is Sibel Edmonds who claims to have read about the US military working with Taliban forces like the mujahedeen in the 1980's. This would be pretty big if true, but there is no evidence for this, and unlikely to have been in the hands of a Turkish translator. She could have just been remembering something else, or confused about what she was reading. After all it's been 9 years since she's worked there. The main point is that this has nothing to do with 9/11 or foreknowledge.

On Plane Site:

At first discovering the documentary is from 2004, and includes some of the older sillier claims left out in the more recent truth documentaries, I didn't see a point in debunking it frame by frame. This has been done for the more recent films. But since this is a movie you're familiar with, and since I accepted the challenge, I'll do a point-by-point analysis. Since the film focuses a lot on the Pentagon theories, I will give a quick summary of the evidence for Flight 77 crashing there.
-Light Pole and generator damage is consistent with Flight 77's trajectory
-Engine, FDR, black box among other plane parts were recovered. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1.jpg
-100+ eyewitnesses who saw the plane
-Radar evidence
-Subsequent analysis by Purdue University and dozens of structural engineers, independent investigators and forensic experts.
-Testimony from first responders who handled passenger remains
-Forensic experts positively identified the passengers DNA, and personal effects were recovered and sent back to the families.
-Airphone and cellphone calls made by passengers tell us that the planes were hijacked
-Damage to the pentagon is consistent with plane crash. When light aluminum crashes into a reinforced concrete wall, you wouldn't expect much to survive. The plane is not going to make a cartoon cutout into the building. Check out what happens to a F-4 phantom when it hits a reinforced wall at 500 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

Here is a video simulation of the plane's trajectory, and outlines the areas of the Pentagon that were damaged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Sean's response in its entirety:
No. not at all. That's ludacris, Dave. I am afraid you are comfortable in your niche and won't change. I will not let you calmly lay these talking points out anymore. I think we should just move obn. You can continue preaching to your choir. No hard feelings.

I say that Dave because I feel myself getting all uptight and it's a worthless argument. You and your associates have "covered all the bases" , huh? I will not have you say that there's nothing there.
Where's the damage to the roof from the tail? If the tail fell off where was it? Where was the plane?? My God, Dave, did you see the wall?? Where was the plane??

Where was the plane in Pennsylvania?? Where, Dave? I do NOT see a plane or anything beklonging to a plane anywhere at the scene. What about the computer monitor on the third floor of the pentagon, untouched??

You are truly hypnotized of you are telling me that a passenger jet hit that building.

So, you refute ALL of that video footage. The flash from every angle, the bumped belly of the plane, the eyewitness reports of explosions....why did the owner silverstein admit that they "pulled" the building???

But the big one.....where's the plane??? Where are the planes?? Did they disappear?? Where is the plane that hit the pentagon, underground? Where was it in the first shiot when they arrived on the scene?? Where are all of the video surveillance footage?? The PENTAGON???!! One tape?? Why did they confiscate the gas station so quickly? Why did George W say he saw the first plane hit the building when NOBODY did?

is that the only picture of a plane???

Dave, listen to me Dave. Planes Don't Just Disappear!! They do not vaporize into thin air, Dave.

This is one of those things where it doesn't matter what the talking points are or what lone picture or explanation you turn to, because I saw it with my own eyes. No plane.

My response:
And so what, is the list of evidence I presented all faked?? You are making an argument from personal incredulity. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe a plane crashed there because it did. Most of the plane was found inside the building, because that's where it crashed. What was left was a bunch of small pieces inside the building which I have presented. When you send a plane at 500+ mph into a reinforced concrete wall, this is what happens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

I know I gave you too much to digest there, and it's clear from your response that you're going into denial mode. I listed plenty of evidence that Flight 77 crashed there, the burden of proof is on you to say how you can make sense of the crash scene without a plane being involved. We don't need a video to know it crashed there, we have plenty of other physical evidence, corroboration from experts, and eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the building. To reject all of this out of hand would be irrational. The reason why we don't have a good video is because the plane was flying in too fast to capture on the shutter speed of security cameras, and because typically you face security cameras towards the ground, not up at the sky. There is not one shred of evidence for a missile or bomb, and not one eyewitness reported seeing a missile. You have nothing. And I already provided an instance of an open field plane crash that resembled Shanksville. The reason why you don't see large parts of the plane is because most was recovered after they dug it up. Some pieces were found 30 feet deep. I'm curious to hear what you think happened to Flight 93. If it was shot down by a missile, wouldn't you expect large pieces of plane scattered over large distances. What do you think the debris field in Shanksville was, if not a plane that crashed into the ground?

Sean's response:

hahaha. First of all, that is a computer re-enactment, the only shot was a lightpole that could've been in front of my house! But what's great is that they show this cartoon, then flash to a real life scene that shows NO PLANE!! Where is the plane?? I don't care about light poles. The plane!!

Answer this: You say it was hot enough, due to building materials + jet fuel to cause river of molten steele to flow at the base of the towers, and in the pentagon enough to vaporize a jetliner within seconds (which is preposterous) So, is it not fishy that the terrorist's passport, wallet, and the koran were found blocks away from the towers!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING? lol

How could you say, with a straight face (lol) that the damage to the pentagon was consistent with that of a 767??? How?? Where's the tail, the wings, the two engines, 8feet in diametr??? Where are they? Why was a wooden desk left unsinged on the second floor, yet an entire plane vaporized?? It's insane for you to argue this, Dave. It looks very poor.

I don't know what to do if you can look at this picture. THIS PICTURE. Not the ones you carved out. This link, the video at 0:03, pause it look point blank at that hole moments after a supposed plane crashed into it and tell me that a 767 hit it. Did you even look at the cartoon you showed me? You are telling me that your cartoon, which is surrounded on youtube by cartoons showing it to be impossible, is more substantial than this actual photograph taken on the scene??

That crazy, and I GUARANTEE that if we got 10 random people and showed them one of my real life pictures versus one of your real life pictures (frames, movies...whatever) and put one of my cartoons versus one of your cartoons. We would average aroun 9.5 in my favor by the end of the day. lol I mean that, We'll go shot for shot, I'll pick mine out of a hat, and you carefully grab the most disproportionate little gif animation flash cartoon you can. I'll take anyone of the camera angles. One is more obvious than the last.

By the way, your cartoon mentions the security camerA, what about the cameras lined up around the entire perimeter, plus the satelitte coverage. Are you telling me that the most secure building in the world, our nations PENTAGON, only had ONE camera????!!!!! The same number of cameras that the gas station across the street had. So, our surveillance is on par with an average citgo????

Actually, lets stay on that one for a while. lol Let's talk security cameras, Dave. One camera? As Bill OReilly would say, "What say you?" One camera? The Pentagon?? WSY??

Where's the gas station video? Why was it initially not released?? What were they covering up?? Why Cheney and Bush together before congress? Were they afraid Bush would say something wrong?? Why would there be anything wrong to say if they didn't do anything??

My response:
Here's an early photo of the crash site, before the fires were put out. Is this consistent with a missile?
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/01749r.jpg

You keep asserting that planes can't vaporize upon impact of a reinforced wall, but I've provided you with a video of an F-4 phantom that shows this can happen. What gives?

You keep jumping around from claims about the towers to shanksville, let's stick with one for now. And I really want to hear what you think about the list of evidence i presented. Is it all fake? All the eyewitnesses and forensic investigators are in on it too? This is where CTs get to the point where they are unfalsifiable, and where I lose interest in them. By this logic you can make a CT about anything.

"Answer this: You say it was hot enough, due to building materials + jet fuel to cause river of molten steele to flow at the base of the towers, and in the pentagon enough to vaporize a jetliner within seconds (which is preposterous) So, is it not fishy that the terrorist's passport, wallet, and the koran were found blocks away from the towers!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING? Lol"

Well there was no tests done on the molten metal flowing, so by default it was probably aluminum, brass or zinc. (among other metals) You are confused. Flight 77 did not partially vaporize due to heat, but due to the collision of a lightweight aluminum jet flying at the speed of a bullet into a reinforced concrete structure. Similar to the F4 phantom crash. It broke up into a bunch of small pieces, which can be seen littered on the lawn, and larger pieces penetrated the building and were later found inside. The passport and other personal effects were ejected from the plane upon impact. Other personal effects such as luggage, seats, letters, passengers' body parts were also found on the street at the time.
Excerpts:
"An F4 is hardly a 767. Why the Jamie McCintire lies. This is just going to go back and forth. So, I'll let you get back to the CT's on the web. I'm done. You dont want to believe so you will never believe. I'll leave you with two questions to ask yourself.
1. This is a lot of BS you have to dig through for something that is so innocent, ain't it? I mean, why not release ALL the tapes? Why not appoint a truly independabnt commission? Why not testify separate and under oath?? (THat is indefensible)"

But you said planes can't vaporize. And besides both are made of aluminum. You are now making an appeal to perfection logical fallacy. Take the time to read over what I said, and take into consideration that you could be duping yourself into believing all of this. It's called cognitive dissonance. You continue to ask a bunch of questions, I have provided good answers to a lot of them. Instead of just asserting that my answers aren't good enough or that they are "thin", you need to catch up and read the debunking sites. Your claim that I just don't want to believe in any of this fails for reasons I've already mentioned. I used to be a CT, I fell for it just like you are doing right now. The further you travel down these rabbit holes, the further you'll be from reality. I believe I have been very patient and respectful so far, but I am beginning to lose interest. You are smart enough to answer all of the questions you've raised, but fail to because you'd rather have all of the "secret knowledge" you've acquired, then to start from scratch and discover that the 9/11 commission report is accurate. I understand why this is and I hope you reconsider your views.

"Dave Dave your site, conspiracy science has shown itself to be a group of frauds, political science majors and politician groupies who, when faced with straightforward questions, resort to vile name-calling.

You do not have to be a pyschiatrist to know that to get angry like that is a certain sign of frustration, like a cheating spouse.

You see that during our entire talk I have not once resorted to so much as a mild insult. My "note" was very straightforward and very valid, yet these political science majors could only muster up that I am a jerk off? That is embarrassing, Dave. You HAVE NOT given good answers to any of them. The photos dont add up. You cant tell me why there is no surveillance at the pentagon. You cant tell me why they refused to be alone or under oath before the commission....
oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later.
and I forgot to say that you were only ten years old when this happened. lol Just kidding. Why is it that I can carry on this discussion without a drop of animosity or hostility toward you or anyone accross the aisle from me, yet your group instantly spews venom?? At least it is obvious who the NICER people are out of CT's and debunkists."

The reason why a lot of members are acting like that is because they can see you are obsessed with this stuff. If you were to ask one question at a time without coming off as closed-minded or sarcastic, they would actually respond. Most of the people I've talked to on CS really do know their stuff. They just don't feel like debating people on it they believe will never change their beliefs. And I hate to say it but I understand why. Every answer I've given you, is according to you, not good enough. This is not my problem. When I hear about the list of evidence for Flight 77 crashing there (plane debris, DNA, radar, eyewitnesses etc.) is no reasonable doubt that it crashed there. You apparently think this is either meaningless or fabricated evidence because we don't have a video. Since you keep asking about the video, I will give you the answer once again in a slightly different way. The cameras at the Pentagon would be pointed towards the ground, not up at the sky. Like I've said before, most of these cameras were not set up to record and had security guards stationed in rooms watching them 24/7. Other problems with capturing the plane on a security video camera, is the fact that they record at a frame rate too slow. The reason why they don't release a video is because the video you want doesn't exist. If you believe that the list of evidence I cited was all fabricated, why wouldn't the conspirators just fake a video too? Think about this for a while. I know you have not said this, but in order for you to be consistent in your assertion that Flight 77 didn't crash there, you would have to believe:
-Plane parts from a Boeing 737 were planted inside a burning building
-Hundreds of actors were hired to fill in as eyewitnesses for the plane
-Hundreds of forensic investigators who identified DNA from all of the passengers were paid off
-Structural engineers from esteemed universities published reports they knew to be false
-Radar technicians were paid off to claim that they tracked the plane
-Light poles and a generator were damaged in some way to make it look like a plane flew through that area. And this was done without anyone else noticing.
-All of this but the conspirators fail to come up with a faked video.
If you can believe all of that, our minds must be wired up differently.
Not only are your demands unreasonable but you move the goalposts. First you asked for a piece of debris that resembled coming from a plane. When I post dozens of pictures of plane parts and debris you then say "Where's a video?" The thing is this typically never ends. If I showed a video you'd probably say it was photoshopped or something. This is why people don't like debating CTs. Not because they're afraid of the truth or ignorant of CT claims. But because most of the time it's pointless. Here's a quote from Vincent Bugliosi's book on the Kennedy assassination sums this up nicely.

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence"

If you probe every little detail of any historical event, you'll end up with some unanswered questions or find some weird stuff. This does not mean everything is a conspiracy.

"Lastly, I have been very polite not to point out that in reality, you are still very young and inexperienced, and that every man, to a T, will say that he knew nothing at the age of 21, so please do not speak with a tone of "I used to be like you, but......" or suggest that I suffer from some sort of mental disorder. "

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I am not trying to say you are inexperienced or dumb, I am saying that I believe you are making some mistakes in your logic and scholarship that I made in the past. I am aware of all of the claims you are making, and have a few years of research into the debunker's counter arguments. My conclusion: debunkers make far more compelling, logical arguments, and refer to actual evidence, not just some anomalies that laypeople find baffling.

"oh yeah and you never answered how tower 7 fell a block away, 8 hours later. "
I did discuss this earlier in our conversation. If you want a technical report, there is the NIST report on building 7 which concluded the building resulted in a progressive collapse due to fire. Despite what a lot of CT sites claim, the fires were large and on at least 16 floors, making it one of the largest, if not the largest office fire in history.(based on area of the building) The building showed signs of weakening around 3 pm, and was deemed unstable by structural engineers who assessed it on site. If you read the firefighter testimony, it all corroborates NIST's hypothesis. If you want to argue that explosives or thermite were used, you need to provide some evidence. To say "I don't understand how the building collapsed, therefore it was x", you are making an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. If you don't want to read NIST's conclusions or read any of the material on "debunkoid" sites, I did show you a video of another building that collapsed from fire. This should be sufficient to establish that building can be weakened by fire, and can in fact collapse.

"WHY DID HE REFUSE TO GO UNDER OATH???? You also failed to answer that. because there IS NO ANSWER!!!!!!! Except to hide and pretend it didn't happen!"

I'm beginning to think you do not read my entire posts. I have addressed this already. This is speculation on my part, but couldn't it just be that Bush didn't know wtf was going on at the time, and that going under oath could result in perjury charges for something he might say out of ignorance or confusion? And like I pointed out before, if these conspirators were going to plan this all out, wouldn't they know that at some time they would have to testify? Why wouldn't they write out a script for Bush to memorize or something. There's another possibility I think even you would consider. Maybe there is something Bush knew beforehand about the attacks. Whether it was some small details or that he knew about everything. (LIHOP scenario) I personally doubt that is the case, but it is a far more believable scenario than Bush and his cronies orchestrated the whole thing.

Sean's response in its entirety:
"Give me a break, Dave. IM NOT THE ONE WITH A WEBSITE!! You are obseessed. But it's like marching for a cause or picketing a labor dispute, putting up a sign and chanting, but when someone asks why you are doing this, you walk away.

Because they see how obsessed I am?? What a lame excuse. When I champion a cause, I can't wait to be engaged, obsessed or not.
It is the same reason Bush would testify under oath or alone.

All you had to do was answer ONE of my questions, but you see the intelligent responses I recieved. You would think the Bush administration (or any) wouldn't leave their supporters high and dry, forced to answer CT's with a blurry picture of a cadillac bumper to support their story!

JUST remember one thing. YOU are the one with the website. They are the ones who came up with the boxcutter story, not me.

hahaha I must remember that. They couldn't answer my questions because they see how obsessed I am. That is hysterical. Since you're on such a roll, or should I say, spin, maybe now would be a good time to adress the insistance on being with uncle Dick and NOT under oath. Can you tell me why anyone in the world with nothing to hide would make that request?

I waon't hold my breath for an answer, however, all of the wack, looney, conspiracy theory sites are always more than willing to engage in a discussion and hurl evidence at you. (An abundance of unanswered questions does give a person the look of obsession I guess. lol

OH excuse me, I have a bad habit of answer you in sections when the first paragraph is that outrageous. Although, that excuse is as flimsy as the rest. I'm not even going to ask why he sat reading to children for seven minutes or why he stated that he saw the first building get hit when nobody did, or why he stuttered all over the place when confronted with the very oath question.

And about the building seven. hahahaha whatever you say.

OK, so far you are ducking and dodging, how about why there was only one camera securing our pentagon???

MY MESSAGES ARE GETTING MESSED UP, BUT IT DOESNT MATTER. I've seen enough. You have actually convinced me further. So, before I recieve a visit from a man in a black suit, I'm done.

AND NOBODY IS SAYING BUSH AND HIS CRONIES DID ANYTHING! GW Bush is a punk kid. He had nothing to do with it except having to listen to Dad! And, the CT's aren't putting out any story. They don't know what happened, but it's obvious what didn't.

My final response in its entirety:
Here is the thing. There are roughly three groups of people who take part in debating conspiracy theories. There are the skeptics/debunkers, fencesitters and hardcore believers. At the start our our discussions I took it you were still on the fence, and still in the "asking questions" phase. I was wrong. You are clearly stuck on believing 9/11 was an inside job. I can only speculate for why this is. You have not given meaningful responses to any of the answers I've given you, most of which were ignored entirely. You've made bald assertions such as: "And about the building seven. hahahaha whatever you say." If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to actually identify the specific faults of my logic or point out some erroneous claims. You have not done this, and to my knowledge no one in the truth movement has. I find it extremely bizarre that you keep asking some of the same questions, even after I have given you multiple answers. I doubt that you missed them somehow, but if you did scroll up. If you don't think the answers are correct, be free to point out the errors. If you have some knee jerk reaction to what I am saying, I can't help you. Reason and evidence trumps emotion.

"Give me a break, Dave. IM NOT THE ONE WITH A WEBSITE!! You are obseessed."

I do consider writing for the site a hobby of mine, but I only occasionally write articles. I'm obsessed with correcting people when I hear them saying things I know to be false, but this should be true of everyone. You are clearly obsessed with the list of factoids you've heard from CT documentaries, and this is what the members of the CS group recognized. There is little to no point in debating a hardcore believer in such nonsense.

"AND NOBODY IS SAYING BUSH AND HIS CRONIES DID ANYTHING! GW Bush is a punk kid. He had nothing to do with it except having to listen to Dad! And, the CT's aren't putting out any story. They don't know what happened, but it's obvious what didn't."

You are implying that when you keep asking why he didn't testify under oath. How are these two claims logically compatible with each other? Yeah I know the CTs aren't putting out any story. Maybe that's a sign that they don't have one. The real reason why they don't know what happened is because they are ignorant of the many great books out there that go over the history of muslim extremism, Bin Laden and the books that cover the attacks themselves and the aftermath. For instance, if you wanted to know what happened at the pentagon, there is a book entitled "Firefight" which contains interviews with dozens of first responders who talk about plane debris, passenger remains etc. It gives both a coherent and plausible narrative to the events that took place there. With the truth movement, we just have a series of questions. No evidence at all, no coherent narrative. Some make the argument that Flight 77 didn't crash at the pentagon because of little to no evidence, but at the same time maintain that it crashed somewhere else without any evidence! This is absurd.

"o summary: Debunkoids do NOT like questions. CT's love questions. Debunkoids protect their ideals. CT's seek truth. Hence, it just wont work."

This is just ridiculous. I won't get into some kind of pissing contest with you, but this is such a useless thing to say in a debate. I could just as easily assert the same thing about CTs. 'You preach from the gospel of internet factoids, and never give meaningful responses to where the debunkers go wrong.' See how easy it is? This is also an ad hominem attack. Although from reading through this exchange one could find dozens of examples that back up my assertion.

Since you have already said that you are even more convinced of your position, I see no point in continuing this conversation. If you want to hear what some other skeptics have to say, I have already given you some links that do just that. But the key ingredient to this is you have to actually sit down and read through a lot of it. I cannot stress this enough. Just glossing over the sites will not suffice. You need to comprehend the counterpoints, and then if you still find problems, point them out.

Conclusion:

You can never really win over a true believer when it comes to debating the details of a conspiracy theory. The best you can do is to try and show where they went wrong with a particular claim and hope that they start to see on their own their bad thinking. When shown the evidence requested, Sean either moved the goal post or found some other way to discount the evidence, by implying it was faked, or by ignoring it entirely. The answers I gave make a lot of sense to me, and are backed by the evidence and expert opinion. If asked to ever do something like this again, I would decline. There are plenty of reasonable people out there who are sincere when they ask questions about 9/11 or JFK and those are the people I'd like to have a conversation with. When someone asks dozens of questions at a time or dismisses all counter arguments as rubbish without any explanation, they are simply concerned with "winning the debate." Plenty of young earth creationists win debates with scientists, but that doesn't make them right. Our best way of finding the truth is science, and if we throw out what the world's leading experts have to say, all we are left with is our own ignorance.

<div style="width: 1px;height: 1px;overflow: hidden">

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos
uld answer all of your questions about the security cameras. Most of the cameras at the pentagon were not hooked up to record. They had live security guards on watch 24/7. It's important to know who's going into the pentagon, not who went into the pentagon. According to JREF poster BCR, "The State of Virginia was kind enough to provide me with invoices for when the VDOT exterior cameras were installed. Work began on them in late-2002 and on 9/11 there was no camera system to record anything. Fort Myers had several exterior cameras, but the footage was not retained. According to security officials, the FBI did review their footage shortly after the event, but did not find any footage useful (mostly gate cameras that pointed down at the roadway)."

</div>

Skeptic Project

Page By Category

Blogs - Dave Sorensen - Email Exchange with a 9/11 truther