The following is taken from my debate with a new-comer Twoofer, and my bulletin postings of such. Hereafter, his words are generally in italics, whereas my replies follow neatly thereafter.  As far as I can, I present his original words in whole and unedited, though occasionally I may leave out a sentence / fragment of his that had no relevance one way or the other.


[First bulletin: his first message, and my reply]
Apparently there are some n00bs out there who see my profile and, for some reason, think to themselves
"hey, i think i'll e-mail him, parroting one or two of the more well-debunked 9/11 twoofer talking-points, and really stump him!"

(*sigh*)


----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: BRiAN
Date: Sep 11, 2007 6:55 PM


I especially enjoyed the part where the guest on the fox show tried to explain building 7's demolition by saying the twin towers fell on it. Even though in the videos of the towers you clearly see the towers fall straight down and building 7 fell straight down without ever being touched!

Brian Thompson
Austin, Texas


[And my reply:]
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, or what you're trying to contend here.

Who is "the guest" and what "the fox show" was he on?
Did you miss the part of the video of tower 1 falling where tons of debris peeled away from it falling well past its footpring? I guess you missed the reports from firefighters on the ground saying (with pictures to back it up) that significant portions of the bottom 10 floors were damaged on that side, and that the building had un-controlled fires burning in it for the rest of the day. Did you miss the part where FDNY chief of operations Daniel Nigro evacuated all personnel from around WTC7 up to 3 hours before it fell because they knew it was structurally unsound?

Finally, i guess *I* missed the part where a controlled demolition of WTC7 (despite its impossibility) would make any sense given the fact that WTCs 1 and 2 were very obviously not.

Feel free to fill me in.
Thanks,
-SLC_myspace




[Second Bulletin: His followup, and my reply]

I figured you'd know what I was talking about given the fact you promote the book of the same guy that was a guest on the "fox & friends" morning show in question. I don't remember his name exactly but I believe its Megis or something to that effect.

Gotcha. I didn't get to view that, but had heard about it. But your comment coming at me with no identifying info definitely confused me, when you simply went ahead saying "that guy" on "that show", with no reference to when, who, or where.


A guy that has no scientific background aside from his current stay as editor at Popular Mechanics.

care to back that up? and seeing as how Popular Mechanics is staffed by, and gets sources directly from engineers and scientists all over the country, how do you truly intend to attack his credibility just by asserting his "lack of scientific background"?



As for your submission of facts concerning debris, debris hit several buildings around the WTC.

Yes, and several were destroyed.


Oddly enough none of them fell along with the WTC except WTC7 which was atleast a block away.

A few fun facts:
1) None of the other buildings were 47-stories tall.
2) WTC7 didn't fall "with" the twin towers: it fell about 8 hours later, after firefighting efforts had been long-since abandoned.
3) None of the other buildings sustained damage in quite the same way as WTC7, nor did they have fires burn all day in a way preventing any firefighting from the FDNY.
4) Being "a block away" is dramatically misleading: Tower 1, which was closest to WTC7, was so high that the tons of debris falling away from it literally rained down on top of the closer side of WTC7, as illustrated excellently in several photos.
5) other buildings WERE so badly damaged that they were essentially lost, having to be demolished later.



I haven't bothered to watch the entire film Loose Change.

that may be a good call on your part. I don't know how anyone could sit through it other than out of morbid curiosity, or for debunking purposes.


I did however take away that it was a poorly made film with links between cover ups with the world trade center that aren't as obvious to the majority of people who are uninformed or flat out clueless but they are detectable.

In other words: they latch onto almost everything that seems inconsistent in any way, and make silly allegations that ultimately have no compatibility with each other, and then raise their eyebrows and say "looks suspicious, eh?"



9-11 was predicted, or uncovered, prior to its happening.

I can predict the next winning lottery numbers, too. I predict that it will be some random combination of 6 numbers. There, i'm right -- see? i predicted it correctly.
Now YOU pick out which of my predictions will actually happen, and go buy yourself a ticket.



London papers printed it a month prior. Alex Jones said it days before it actually took place.

Sure, and nobody in the mainstream liberal media has picked up on any of this. And alex jones isn't anti-semitic either. (lol.)



It was hard for me to believe to when I first heard it brought to my attention.

it should be hard to believe to any rational person, and there are good reasons for this.


BUT WAIT
Just a few paragraphs ago you were arguing that WTC7 was demolished, which is obviously MIHOP (i.e. you believe the government planned and executed the attacks). But now you've changed topics completely and claim that we KNEW about the attacks (which implies that the attacks were carried out by the terrorists).
So, which is it? It can't be both. Sorry.


However when it actually took place it was clear to me America is in trouble. Corrupt politicians have sent this country up the river.

easy to say, but (since it's not really true), hard to prove.


I'd just like to encourage people like yourself to be open minded enough to open your heart and mind to the truth.

Trust me, i'm pretty damn open-minded. Which "truth" do you want me to accept, though? That the government carried out the attacks, or simply knew about them in advance and chose to not do anything?

and are YOU open-minded enough to accept the truth (the one supported by little things like fact and evidence), which is that even if there were accurate warnings, there was no plausible way to distinguish them from thousands of fake or highly-inaccurate ones, and the government was simply unprepared to deal very quickly with the overall events of that day?

the real litmus test: is there any *evidence* that could change your mind? if the answer is "no" (like it is for most twoofers), then that means you've accepted the "Truth" as a religion and will seek evidence to support your views, no matter how flawed or disproven.


Even if its hard to take in. Even if you still don't agree with the facts and information provided to you concerning 9-11-01 the ultimate fact remains.

I take the facts as I see them. As far as "facts" supporting the twoof movement, I've yet to actually see any.



Bush is bad for this country. His administration is bad for our country and us concerned citizens need to stand up and push these corrupt people out of office and try to usher in people that aren't morally and ideally bankrupt.

Think what you will, but don't blame Bush / the government / the zionists / the illuminati / the JOOOOOOS / whoever, for something they're clearly not guilty (or capable) of.


I have enclosed a video for you to enjoy. Godspeed and good luck in your endevors.
[video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8]
Alex Jones "Predicts" 9/11

I'm watching it now: essentially, Alex Jones is ranting about supposed "government-sponsored" terrorism, saying we can watch out for it and that the government "will be responsible". Well, yawn. Nothing new from him: he has made a career out of doom-speaking (such as his Y2K apocalypse fanaticism which didn't come to fruition quite like his 2001 terrorism rants). It doesn't really prove anything other than that he's a blowhard anti-government conspiradroid.

-SLC_myspace