The founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage, is an old friend of mine. They now have more than 1,500 licensed architects and engineers who are demanding a new investigation into 9/11.
Short video: "I Was A Deluded 9/11 Truther"
by bohm 141 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
strymeckirules
ha ha bohm and cantleave trust the government.
who else trusts the government of the usofa?
speak up and stand up for your government's explaination!
-
strymeckirules
Also, i dont think you should rely on strangers on the internet for advice on what to do in your spare time and what to do/see.
and so what is the point of posting this video man's opinion?
calling the kettle black much?
-
flipper
BOHM- Interesting you-tube regarding Building # 7. Thanks for posting it. Makes a lot of sense
-
bohm
PSon: Then how much are they paying you bohm? Or do you defend criminals for free?
i am being paid in the gold the nazis flew away in their flying saucers, so far 10 dollars. asides that i find your baseless accusations tasteless and stupid.
James Thomsom: There is a difference between demanding a new investigation, and believing in a controlled demolision scenario. Also i prefer listening to the evidence myself over arguments from popular oppinion in a matter such as this.
Strymec: Okay. First off you need to make up your mind if this is a matter of evidence (as you stated formerly), or "trusting the government" (as you state now). I go with the evidence, and there is no convincing evidence for any controlled demolition scenario which stand up to scrutiny.
-
bohm
Cantleave, flipper: I think its quite amazing how much he manage to pack into 3-4 minutes and destill it down to its core. I think he is a comedian, and i suppose that is where he got those skills from.
-
JamesThomas
"...i prefer listening to the evidence myself over arguments from popular oppinion in a matter such as this...there is no convincing evidence for any controlled demolition scenario which stand up to scrutiny."
Bohm, if you were to actually "listen to the evidence yourself" of the many highly educated explanations on the site I gave you -- which includes demolition experts -- you may likely change your mind.
Understandably, it can be painfully difficult to read the info and watch the videos on the site as the implications can be very unpleasant.
-
bohm
JamesThomas:
Bohm, if you were to actually "listen to the evidence yourself" of the many highly educated explanations on the site I gave you -- which includes demolition experts -- you may likely change your mind.
And i could make a similar assertion about you; that if you listened to the many highly-educated people who adhere to the official explanation you would come to change your mind :-).
It is not the first time i discuss this topic, and it has been my experience that when i dig into some subject it only turns out --i am told-- that i choose the wrong piece of evidence to examine, and i am being encouraged to investigate some other topic which no doubt will convince me. Call me a cynic, but i will propose the following: You find a technical work on the site which you have read and understood to the point you find it convincing as it is.
I will prefer a work on the impossibility of progressive collapse, because that is what i find the most interesting, but i leave it up to you. Then we need to figure out how the work is being used as an argument against the official explanation, and then we can work out how sound it is.
My claim on this account is that anything you can provide will either have very little concrete evidence and thus be very weak, or it will contain flaws. If you can provide evidence which does not contain flaws and which is quite concrete, that will make me reconsider my position. If, on the other hand, i can point out flaws you was not aware of, i hope that will make you reconsider if the rest of the evidence is isolated from similar flaws and perhaps reconsider what you believe.
If you think the examination i sketch above is flawed, ie. it is an improper way to investigate the question, i hope we can discuss that instead.
-
bohm
JT: As a postscript, i want you to know i understand that in any matter of science it is not fair to ask for one piece of evidence which proove a theory in one big swoop -- it cant be done with evolution, relativity or quantum mechanics, and i dont expect you to do it with the WTC. But there should be many good pieces of evidence, and i want to examine one of those.
-
strymeckirules
and a video from a comedian is who's opinion you've selected to go with.
he should be credible enough. you can always trust a comedian.
if you were not trying to throw propaganda to us, maybe you should have had videos of differing view points and let us decide what to believe. instead you posted one point of view as fact, thus you are biased. emotional instead of logical.