2009-12-29 Response to Michael Shermer

2009-12-29  World for 9/11 Truth \9-11/anomalies\9-11/truth\Michael Shermer http://world911truth.org/response-to-michael-shermer/ Response to Michael Shermer Response to Michael Shermer  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?
 * 8: While you’re at it, tell us about the tons of molten steel found underneath the 3 towers as described by the first responders, but totally denied by NIST.
 * 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.

Reprints: SpookyPunkos said...
 * "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 ... Thanks !

January 4, 2010 5:19 PM - Pen said... I recently left two comments at this old eSkeptic article: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11 The first one:  In 2006, the author of this article tells us, with great confidence that:  “Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.12 Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained.” 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:  “Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.” http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html  So, perhaps someone can explain how “the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained [from the debris]” but at the same time “had little effect in causing the collapse”? Are we supposed to believe the author of this paper – who seems to have convinced some of you here – or NIST, who we are ALL supposed to believe – or is it possible that they are both mistaken and another explanation fits the observations?

January 19, 2010 8:20 AM - Pen said... The second one: I realise this thread is rather out of date now but my comment above poses a question to all of you here – including the author – who think the article is a good and accurate one. I need to do a short preamble, so please bear with me: 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. If someone is a “truther” the only thing you know about them is that they do not believe the official version of what happened on 9/11. That is it, no more, no less. They may be highly intelligent, rational, critical thinkers or they may believe that no planes hit the twin towers, that George Bush masterminded the entire thing (personally, I think this is less likely than crop circles/aliens heh heh!!!!)or any other nonsense. Bearing this in mind, it would appear that Phil Mole and those who agree with him here are “truthers”. If you believe that “the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained [from the debris from the collapse of building 1]”, you must be sceptical of the NIST report that claims that the falling debris “had little effect in causing the collapse” which, they say, was primarily due to fires. Congratulations, you doubt the veracity of the official report – like all other “truthers”. On the other hand, if you entirely agree with the NIST report and can see that the collapse of WTC7 is not consistent with the damage from the falling debris, then you must recognise that the author of this piece does not know what he is talking about and some, most or all the rest of the article could also be a load of cr… rubbish. Congratulations, you disagree with this article, like many or all other “truthers”. Welcome to the club! What I am interested in is whether Phil Mole or even Mr. Shermer himself still accept the official – as in the NIST report – on the collapse of building 7 or are they now sceptics? If they do accept that WTC7 collapsed because of fires – not because of collateral damage – perhaps they could explain what evidence so radically changed their opinion… that way, some of us who doubt the veracity of the NIST report might be swayed. 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 - Pen said... 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

&ldquo;This is our response to Michael Shermer's article 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack].&rdquo;   