I was bored the other day and started bashing truthers on Blogger, and my words seem to have incited one truther to respond to my post... or well, snippets from various posts in no particular order, but more on that later.
1) The identities are in doubt, yet the government refused to correct them, or to admit they were unsure.
People whose photos appeared as the FBI's hijackers turned up alive. This is very strange.
Most "truthers" agree they existed, at least some number of them anyway. The "turning up alive" reports aren't all "debunked." Some had their identities stolen. So they actually were alive, so who was it that was supposed to be on the plane?
The other difficult part about the "hijackers" is that NONE OF THEM WERE RELIGIOUS. Why kill yourself "for Islam" if you're not even religious, and you ignore all your religious customs and dictates?
And yet another difficult problem about the hijackers is the drug smuggling that Daniel Hopsicker reported on at Huffman Aviation. Hopsicker ties Huffman aircraft back to the CIA, and to other aircraft used smuggling narcotics that met up with truncated flight plans in Mexico.
Yeah, and all your "proof" involves one or two articles that came out in the weeks immediately after the attacks. Turns out the name Mohammed and various surnames are pretty common in the Muslim world? Identities stolen? Ha, show me your "proof."
Same goes for your "explosive evidence" that they weren't religious. The only link you do provide is for this Hopsicker guy, who has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And your link doesn't even go to a direct post, but rather the main page of what looks to be another truther website. So much for your "research" and "evidence."
Well, I certainly believe all those eye witnesses talking about "explosions", "bombs in the buildings", "secondary devices" and other euphamisms. See this video:
Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11.
Why would all those people lie? Or, conversely, what exploded? (There was no natural gas in the towers.)
Most of your "witnesses" had their quotes taken out of context and completely misrepresented to fit your little theory. What about all the witnesses who claim these quotes were taken out of context? And even if witnesses do stick by the fact they heard explosions, so be it. Sure, someone can hear what they think is an explosion, but does that prove it to be so?
What exploded? Perhaps your ADHD is at it again, and you forgot that a commercial jetliner crashed through the building at 500 miles an hour! What about the raging inferno, caused by the jet fuel, which fell down the elevator shaft? Could it be that blazing elevator cars were falling from 1,000 feet and made a loud boom sound? I guess that wouldn't fit your little theory, so like every other fact in the world, its ignored.
"[Silverstein] got paid. It probably went into his company, for which he is a major shareholder. What's the point of that one?"
I love you truthers. Again, you take a quote out of context and make it seem like the point I'm arguing is that Larry got all the money for himself. OF COURSE, the payout went to his company... you know, to REBUILD. But again, you leave that point out. Again, in perhaps a language you can understand, SILVERSTEIN LOST MON$$$$EY ON THE DEALIOLOLOLOL!1!1!
As for BBC, they covered it up for five years, remember. Then they pretended they never knew about it (lie), which is impossible because as soon as their transmission mysteriously was cut over the satellite, the real building 7 went down in a blaze of glory. This was noticed immediately by BBC's reporter. They then -- when finally confronted over it -- said "We're not part of the conspiracy" in addition to claiming they lost the tapes (so they wouldn't have to apologize for it on the air). I do not trust the BBC. They doth protest too much.
They didn't cover anything up for 5 years. This video only surfaced among truthers this past February. You guys are so desperate to cherrypick and find any "evidence," that it seems like you searched the archives for months and found something you could come up with an elaborate explanation for.
Perhaps it was just the fact that it was fucking 9/11 and utter chaos in newsrooms throughout the world. You know, occam's razor-- the reporter was human and made a mistake in the confusion of the day? Could you identify Building 7 before you became a truther? If anything, the BBC report just confirms the fact that it was popular belief that the building was obviously unstable and in danger of coming down.
Dr. Steven Jones certainly has not ignored science or logic.
Dr. Jones' hard evidence of microscopic "steel spherules" in the dust of the WTC event is powerful stuff. Spheres like that could only have been formed in a molten state. They are corroborated by a US Geological Survey report.
Too bad Jones is a physicist, and not a structural engineer. You also mentioned Kevin Ryan, but I won't even quote that because he's just a lowly water tester. If Jones' work is 100% scientific, why won't any other structural engineer in the world back up his claims and, you know, peer-review his findings?
Yes, and the spheres... Wow, they're both round! Groundbreaking stuff. Molten state? Yeah, there were molten metals, but that doesn't mean it was molten steel. Planes are made of aluminum, you know.
As for demolition, there are strong grounds for suspecting it, including Griffin's "10 features" of controlled demolition. Couple that with the inverse, that these 10 features have NEVER been seen in any case other than a controlled demolition, never in history. That is at least enough to make it possible, if not proven.
Yes, but Griffin's 10 features all take place in the wrong order and over 90 minutes. The aspects all occur within a few seconds during a CD. Already brought it up here, but I guess you didn't read my blog as thoroughly as you thought.
And just because something is probable does not make it proven. You and Mike Ruppert would make good friends. Maybe you didn't know that, and that's why you're still wrapped up in all these conspiracy theories.
Danny Jowenko, who owns a controlled demolition company, looked at WTC7 and said, "This is controlled demolition." "It's been imploded." "A team of experts did this."
Is this the Dutch guy who watched it on TV? What about all the experts who actually had pieces of debris to analyze? What about every American engineer who has seen the collapse in the proper context who disagrees with you?
Alright, I'm getting tired of this...
You really do ramble around mentally.
Yes, as you cherrypick random quotes from different blog entries and post them in a rambling style all your own. Responding to your post has been extremely tedious, and I have a finance exam to study for. Because, you know, some of us have lives of our own and the ambition to excel(and not just panic about doomsday). You, my friend, are stuck in a lost cause.
So make your own pamphlet. Why is this such a difficult solution for you to come up with? Make your own movie. You already made your own blog. It doesn't enlighten, however.
You forget that I'm co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany, the first 9/11 truth campus group to be officially recognized and funded by the university. What are your credentials?
How many anomalies do I need to type (yet again) to make this clear?
This is exactly my problem with the "truth" movement. You guys pile on so much BS like all the long-debunked claims in this very response and add it in with one or two legitimate facts like "bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11" and you think your case is astronomical. If it was, it'd be brought to trial right now by one of the victims. You guys can't even agree on anything within your movement! Unfortunately your theories are unfounded, your experts are nowhere to be found, and all that's left is a group of un-American narcissistic kooks who can agree on nothing but the "fact" that the government did it.