2009-12-29 Response to Michael Shermer
<hide> <let name=data index=Date>2009-12-29</let> <let name=data index=Author></let> <let name=data index=Source>World for 9/11 Truth</let> <let name=data index=Topics>\9-11/anomalies\9-11/truth\Michael Shermer</let> <let name=data index=URL>http://world911truth.org/response-to-michael-shermer/</let> <let name=data index=Title>Response to Michael Shermer</let> <let name=data index=TitlePlain>Response to Michael Shermer</let> <let name=data index=Text> The author focuses on a list of questions Shermer should answer (some paraphrased):
- 1: Why would the U.S. Government keep close ties with Al-Qaeda up until 9/11?
- 2: Why was Bin Laden never formally charged for being responsible for 9/11 by the FBI (www.fbi.gov)?
- 3: Did you know that much of 9/11 Commission findings cite intelligence garnered by torture?
- 4: Did you know that accused al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed admitted lying under torture?
- 5: Can you explain how people living in caves in Afghanistan were able to arrange for NORAD to stand down for over 90 minutes?
- 6: Can you tell us how WTC Building 7 was able to collapse onto itself at almost free fall acceleration?
- 7: Can you tell us why both twin towers exploded into fine dust at near free fall?
- 9: Do you have anything to say regarding nano-thermite that was found in the dust of the WTC collapse?
- 10: Could you use your talents and contacts to help us get credible tapes from the Pentagon showing the plane that supposedly hit it?
The writing is rather amateurish, but all anomalies cited are legitimate -- if not necessarily the most important ten points to hammer down on.
Reader comments were closed as of 2010-02-02, with no comments posted.
- "Debunking the Debunkers" blog (DtD) posted it here, but as of 2010-02-02 the article has been deleted for reasons not yet known. It includes the following 4 comments, retrieved from Google cache on 2010-02-02:
Great points JM !
A very good summary of the on going Bin Laden/Al Qaeda deception...
I wouldn't trust Shermer tho. He's a ratbag "skeptic". I have noted that this guy has pushed obvious falsehoods inthe past whereas an objective scientist would have maintained an alternative viewpoint.
He's charming and disarming, he often speaks in an accessible "round about" sort of way, but speaking well and presenting an evidenced based argument are two different things ...
January 4, 2010 5:19 PM
I recently left two comments at this old eSkeptic article:
The first one:
In 2006, the author of this article tells us, with great confidence that:
Now this may explain one reason why some people are not convinced by the official explanation, because the NIST report on WTC7 (2008) says this:
January 19, 2010 8:20 AM
The second one:
If someone is an atheist, the only thing you know about them is that they do not believe in God (or gods). That is it, no more, no less. They may be highly intelligent, rational, critical thinkers or they may believe that homeopathic treatments work beyond placebo, that crop circles are messages from aliens and that tarot cards predict the future.
Welcome to the club!
I have just cut and pasted the second one (slightly amended) as a comment here - http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/29/911-truthers-foiled-again/
The comment is "awaiting moderation". I can't see any reason why it won't be posted though, can you?
January 19, 2010 8:20 AM
The comment has been posted on skeptic.com. Anyone want to take a stab at whether or how it might be responded to? ;o)
January 20, 2010 4:09 AM
<let name=data index=TextShort>“This is our response to Michael Shermer's article 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack].”</let> </hide><if not flag=$including><let name=docat val=1 /><call ShowLinkData /></if>