addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo
A former member
Post #: 11
This thread is for those who wish to add additional conversation on the topic. You can also find interviews, articles, that were posted in connection to this topic and the 12/17 meet-up on our group's website: annarborscienceskeptic.com­.
A former member
Post #: 99
The 9 pages of skeptical counter-arguments distributed Sat. the 17th are seriously lacking. If you research an issue you have to look at both sides of that issue. I will debunk the government position you are promoting in a couple days. Let me pull together info. You are wrong. Given the fact you posted no other 9/11 truther sources reveals you have an agenda. You are wrong.
A former member
Post #: 1
I agree with Mark.
When I read the counter-arguments distributed Sat. the 17th a few days after the meetup was over, I was shocked that only one side was presented. This is not what I expected to discover about the group focus, and was very dismayed. There are also some other concerns I have that came up during the Sat. the 17th meetup, and will most likely bring those up at the January meetup.
A former member
Post #: 100
The 9 pages of counter-arguments were very weak.

1 - The author(s) keep referring to thermite when Steven Jones has been discussing nano-thermite.

2 - In questioning Steven Jones position on thermite (?), the author(s) state , Sulfur, Iron, Potassium, Manganese, Florine, and Titanium were already on site as compounds inherent to the buildings and aircraft. My question is, are the authors suggesting these elements miraculously congealed to become thermite after the fact(?). If so, someone needs to see a psychiatrist.

3 - The author(s) wasted much paper and ink trying to plant seeds of doubt on the issue of thermite(?) but they never question why the NIST never bothered to conduct any tests for any explosives! The counter-arguments are trash.

4 - The demolition of the Hudsons bldg is in the counter-arguments. The Hudsons bldg was demolished 3 years before 9/11 and as far as I know nano-thermite did not exist at that time. We have no idea how long the perpetrators of 9/11 had to set up the crime scene. Given the fact George Bushes brother Marvin was on the board of directors of the security firm guarding the World Trade Center, I consider the point moot. Also here the issue of bomb sniffing dogs was raised however if the dogs were not trained to sniff out nano-thermite they would not seek it out. Right?

5 - The argument about the weight of the plane is used as if a solid 472,740 lb. object plowed into the bldgs. This raises many questions. Truth is the aircraft would have pulverized upon impact with much or most of the fuel ejecting out the other side. In fact, the govt. position is that the aircraft sheered so many of the support box beams, that is what started the chain reaction collapses of the towers. Problem is, the govt. position on the Pentagon crash states the exact opposite. The argument there is that the wings and tail section of the aircraft are thin and light which explains why the entire aircraft was sucked into an 18 ft. hole. Now we have to question where did the engines go at the Pentagon and why was a three foot titanium fan blade found but not the two 9 ft. blades from the two main engines? Aeronautical engineers have said the three foot blade did not match the auxiliary motor found on that particular aircraft. Also, where are the two holes that should have been punched thru the pentagon wall. Those engines weigh 6 tons apiece. Also, the freeway is higher than the entry point on the Pentagon wall. It defies the laws of physics for an aircraft weighing at least 473 thousand pounds flying at 510 knots to be able to make those kinds of maneuvers with a pilot who could not fly a tiny single engine pipercub plane. Anyone who has actually looked at the evidence would have to know a commercial airliner did not hit the Pentagon. After all, why were the large wire spools still intact on the lawn in front of the entry point? Why won't the govt. release any videos of the Pentagon crash? Bottom line is, the more evidence the govt. releases, the more contradictions they have to address. And again, aeronautical engineers know those commercial airliners could not fly at sea level at 510 knots without the wings coming off!

6 - In regards to foreknowledge, did you know the millions of dollars of payout from the put options on airline stocks were placed on computers from within the twin towers? And I guess one would have to ask where did the $800 million dollars worth of gold which was stored in the basement complex disappear to?

I realize I have styrayed a bit from the specific A&E position put forth but if your want to cure a disease, you have to look at all the symptoms. A&E will have to keep this point in mind if they are going to be more effective down the road. If anyone wants to carry this debate forward I am game but you have to have realistic arguments. All the counter-arguments are speculative trash. You have to at least be aware of the other sides arguments before you can attempt to debate an issue. 9/11 was an inside job.
A former member
Post #: 12
I agree with Mark.
When I read the counter-arguments distributed Sat. the 17th a few days after the meetup was over, I was shocked that only one side was presented. This is not what I expected to discover about the group focus, and was very dismayed. There are also some other concerns I have that came up during the Sat. the 17th meetup, and will most likely bring those up at the January meetup.

Hi Debra,

Thank you for the feedback. The reason why I was posting the skeptical position was to provide both sides of the argument at the meet-up. The speaker, Stanley Beattie, had told me that he was going to provide some literature at the meet-up, and I explained to him that I would provide a skeptical set of literature as well. We had participants who'd not made up their mind, and I thought it would be of benefit for those folks (and those from each camp) to be familiar with what the other camp was arguing.

The 9-page documents were in reply to the arguments posted on the AE911 website, and were posted on our group website at annarborscienceskeptic.com. It was our intent to provide both sides on our website, leading up to the meet-up, but the folks I'd contacted about contributing an article or doing an interview never got back to me

I'd be happy to chat about this with you further at the next meet-up. Thanks!

A former member
Post #: 13
Mark,

Thanks for the post. I'm going to cross-this over to our group website as well. It will go up Tuesday (12/27) morning at 8am. I think it's important that skeptics and those on the fence become familiar with the truther arguments.
A former member
Post #: 101
Thanks Chris, more debate the better.
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy