Originally posted by ObservorWhile I don't have anything to dispute with the part I didn't quote, this one is blatantly false.

Christianity, at least nominally, is a religion of peace because of what Jesus preached, even if few Christians follow it. However, Islam is not a religion of peace, the prophet himself having fought several wars. But I personally don't hold that against Islam.

hmm ok point taken. I am far from a scholar on Islam, but my understanding is there is a similar dichotomy between pre- and post-Mohammed as there is with Old- and New Testament Christianity, just the opposite.

i.e. Old Testament God = brutal, harsh and vengeful. New Testament = All love, kindness and sending his only Son to die for us.

Pre-Mohammed = Peace, Post-Mohammed = War.

I know that is simplifying it too much, but that is my general understanding so please correct me if I am wrong.

Regardless I still believe the core message of the Quran is one of peace. That said I have never read it so I am possibly entirely wrong. Perhaps it is just propaganda? Yet I have heard real Muslims say that Islam is a religion of peace, so I think there is some truth to it.

Anyway, my point is that people on both sides of the fence can come up with hateful ideas about the others and use that to justify violence. There ARE real terrorists out there and I think that's why it was so easy to blame 9/11 on them.

A poster on here a while back pointed out that if terrorism were really a threat to us, then you'd have people walking into shopping centres with AK-47s on a regular basis. From what I understand, you can buy guns "off the street" in the US so it would be dead easy for someone to pick one up and start shooting up a public place. Or is all of the security just so good that they can stop all these minor threats....just not the really massive ones that kill thousands of people?

SteveR... I stopped reading when you put the word God into the sentence. So you want to debunk one set of insanities and have at it that it was some imaginary figure that triumphed?

That's disgusting. Religion is the biggest and simplest form of brainwash ever achieve in the history of mankind...

Building 7.

Maybe the fear of accepting the horrible truth is just too much for some people, which is why they fall back on their Big Daddies religion and government and reinforced by the media. It's just too much for them to accept, because it would also mean they would have to consider other aspect of their lives are false.

Reading through the posts, isn't it interesting how ridiculous defending the official story has become? There are just so many things that can't be explained and yet they cling to it so desperately.

Originally posted by cartenz


aerodynamics == physics?

I already have 4 degrees, I dont need 4 more to know the OS is BS.

Aerodynamics=subset/specialist field of physics. Just like nuclear physics, engineering, ect.

Since you don't have degrees in the specific fields, how do you know for certain the OS is BS?

So what changed your mind on the matter? Because from the title of this thread (and countless others like it), it seems that a whole lot of you guys one day started believing in the OS and I just want to know what life changing event caused such?

Why does one need a "life changing event" to stop believing in a particular conspiracy theory?

I didn't wake up one day and say "ooh, I believe the whole OS! lulz". Hell, I do not fully 100% believe everything in the OS, only in general aspects of it. What changed my mind?

Reading articles by witnesses, firefighters, policemen at the WTC and Pentagon. And asking people who I knew personally, who have expertise in certain fields, to explain or give their own opinions on the information from the NIST report and the 9/11 commission report. Looking for information to bolster a case for conspiracy, only to find out the more I looked at things reasonably and in context, the more my own conspiracy theories crumbled.

And 10 years on, people are still debating the same flimsy, strawman "evidence", using the same questionable, unreliable sources. The NIST report has been out for a few years, yet only some 1500 architects and engineers, out of over a MILLION in the US alone, question it. The other million+ architects and engineers in the US haven't brought up any major issues with NIST, only minor technical/acedemic issues. One of my in-laws is an electronics engineer who has worked for Boeing for over 15 years. His main job is designing the electronic safety systems on Boeing aircraft. When he and his colleagues at work (who I occasionally visited since Boeing-Everett was right around the corner from where I lived) are telling me that there was nothing impossible about what any of the Boeing planes did on 9/11, I think I'm going to take their expert opinions, the word of people WHO ACTUALLY DESIGN AND BUILD THE FRIGGIN PLANES, over some armchair "expert" conspiracy theorist on the net who only cherry picks a few quotes out of context to support a theory.

It was a number of things over time, that changed my mind, on the issue of 9/11 conspiracy. beyond the possible shootdown of Flight 93, and alot of hard evidence of prior knowledge in the case of key govornment officials, I have come to the conclusion that on September 11th, 2001, a bunch of psychotic jihadis hijacked 3 planes, crashed them into 3 buildings, and killed 3000 plus people in the process. The WTC 1&2 were brought down not by bombs,nukes, or death-rays, but a combination of disaster piled on disaster, starting with those big-assed jetliners that slammed into them at 500 miles an hour.

Anyway, if you want to debate why you are right and I am wrong, you'll have to be disappointed, as I do not see the point. I have no desire to change your mind, or the mind of any CT'er or truther. Nor do I seriously believe that anything I posted or debated will change yours, or anyones mind on the matter. The topic of this discussion was about an ex-truther talking discussing why he no longer believed 9/11 was a conspiracy, and since I am of a similar situation, I added my 2 cents on the issue. That's all.

Believe whatever you wish. That's basically what most people do, anyway.

Originally posted by Cecilofs
hmm ok point taken. I am far from a scholar on Islam, but my understanding is there is a similar dichotomy between pre- and post-Mohammed as there is with Old- and New Testament Christianity, just the opposite.

i.e. Old Testament God = brutal, harsh and vengeful. New Testament = All love, kindness and sending his only Son to die for us.

Pre-Mohammed = Peace, Post-Mohammed = War.

I know that is simplifying it too much, but that is my general understanding so please correct me if I am wrong.

I am not by any stretch of imagination a scholar of Islam myself, but am reasonably knowledgeable about the religion.

I am afraid you are still wrong. In Islam, like in any other religion including Christianity, war and peace are non-issues. The core issues are related to how an individual relates to the creator, death and conduct within the society. Very few have details about the prescribed conduct for a society that follows the religion with respect to a society that doesn't, which is what war is all about, conflict between two societies.

Regardless I still believe the core message of the Quran is one of peace. That said I have never read it so I am possibly entirely wrong. Perhaps it is just propaganda? Yet I have heard real Muslims say that Islam is a religion of peace, so I think there is some truth to it.

I have a copy of the Quran (an English translation, since I don't understand Arabic) which I got free from some online Islamic organisation when my curisoity was roused by 9/11. I knew several Muslims personally even before that, but wanted to know first hand what the Quran says. Islam doesn't have anything against peace, but it doesn't hold peace as some state that is desirable in and by itself. Islam doesn't mandate that Muslims wage wars on non-Muslims (although Muslims, like Christians, are obligated to attempt to convert non-believers to the true religion), but it doesn't preach that war/violence have to be avoided at all costs.

The histories of Islam and Christianity are the exact opposites of each other. Islam started off as a very violent war-mongering ideology that morphed into peaceful coexistence with people of other religions within Islamic societies and with non-Islamic societies, while Christianity started off as a peaceful ideology that morphed into a very violent ideology against non-believers within Christian societies and war-mongering against non-Christian societies. If peaceful coexistence with those of differing beliefs is considered a higher state of social evolution, Islam evolved into a better version of what it began as, while Christianity evolved into a worse version of what it began as.

Anyway, my point is that people on both sides of the fence can come up with hateful ideas about the others and use that to justify violence. There ARE real terrorists out there and I think that's why it was so easy to blame 9/11 on them.

I know people of several faiths and I have absolutely no reason to believe that a person's religion turns him/her into anything specific. One can always find religious justifications for one's personal preferences. We are all creative enough to do that

A poster on here a while back pointed out that if terrorism were really a threat to us, then you'd have people walking into shopping centres with AK-47s on a regular basis. From what I understand, you can buy guns "off the street" in the US so it would be dead easy for someone to pick one up and start shooting up a public place. Or is all of the security just so good that they can stop all these minor threats....just not the really massive ones that kill thousands of people?

There in fact are several incidents where someone with a gun shoots random strangers, but those are not classified as terrorism since there is an apparent lack of motivation for it. But if one such incident involves a Muslim perpetrator, you can bet it will automatically be classified as Islamic Terrorism. Again, we are sure creative

Originally posted by Paschar0
Building 7.

Maybe the fear of accepting the horrible truth is just too much for some people, which is why they fall back on their Big Daddies religion and government and reinforced by the media. It's just too much for them to accept, because it would also mean they would have to consider other aspect of their lives are false.

Reading through the posts, isn't it interesting how ridiculous defending the official story has become? There are just so many things that can't be explained and yet they cling to it so desperately.

Bingo. Not too many years ago I believed the bible was factual, that people in higher government were generally well meaning towards their own people and wouldn't be capable of actually pulling off an event such as 9-11 and that the news was true because if it wasn't, someone would speak up about it.

Now the 8th grade is a distant memory and so are my fairy tales.

The topic of this discussion was about an ex-truther talking discussing why he no longer believed 9/11 was a conspiracy, and since I am of a similar situation, I added my 2 cents on the issue. That's all.

exactly. You said:

...where I stood on the 9/11 issue then. Which was, firmly in the conspiracy court. But that was then...

so me asking WHY is completley relevant to the topic as it is questioning the motivation for some one to hold the position of "I was a deluded 'truther'".

Aerodynamics=subset/specialist field of physics.

yes, being a "subset" means its part of the field of physics. Your disagreeing with me by telling me Im right--that is not practical argument.

And asking people who I knew personally, who have expertise in certain fields, to explain or give their own opinions on the information from the NIST report and the 9/11 commission report

I question the credibility of said persons. What makes them an "expert"? What sort of vested interests do they hold? How do you know these "experts"?. So far I have yet to encounter anything credible that supports the OS, if you can share more information it might be helpful.

Originally posted by cartenz


so me asking WHY is completley relevant to the topic as it is questioning the motivation for some one to hold the position of "I was a deluded 'truther'".

Which I answered.

I question the credibility of said persons. What makes them an "expert"? What sort of vested interests do they hold? How do you know these "experts"?. So far I have yet to encounter anything credible that supports the OS, if you can share more information it might be helpful.

I do not question the credibility of the people I asked, because they are friends, family, or associates of mine. , What makes them "experts"? The fact they are trained professionals in their fields, for starters. I mentioned my in-law. I've spoken to two other people known personally to me, one an engineer, the other a retired police officer. They gave me their opinions on the matter. Their "vested interests" are being competant professionals, as well as honestly answering my questions. And they only gave their opinions in those parts of 9/11 where they had expertise or knowledge.

Of course, it didn't end there for me, and their opinions were only reference points, something to ponder as I looked further. They were not the sole source for my change of opinions, but pointed me in the right direction for places to find answers.

You have not found anything to support the OS. What sources do you find credible? If you are the sort of person that only believes or trusts conspiracy sites/theorists, and does not believe anything from "mainstream" sources, no matter what, or rejects any information that does not come from "alternative" sources, then I can't help you. If you are open minded enough to evaluate all information, regardless of source, then I will share what I can, though a good portion of my own researching was done offline.

Which specific parts of the OC do think are wrong? I've already stated I believe foreknowledge existed amongst certain high-ranking officials, and I believe its quite possible Flight 93 was shot down, so I won't be arguing those points. I also believe the 9/11 Commision report was incomplete, and already know the Bush administration was involved in alot of omissions and stonewalling. But other parts, if you list specifically what you have problems, I will try to provide sources I found helpful and convincing, and then you can decide whether or not its enough for you.

But I would, as part of your search,, if you do not already have a copy, get a copy of the 9/11 Commision report and a copy of the NIST findings. If you know anyone with any professional expertise in certain areas, have them read them, and ask them for their opinions. Look offline as well as online for answers. You would be surprised with what you might find. You might find people who support your theories, or people who will explain why they believe the OS version. If nothing else, it will provide food for thought, wherever your search leads you.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

YouTube clown and Joe Six pack ... yep better take their word for it.

So then in your opinion, we shouldn't give their opinions any merit?

I agree.

And yet, you state your belief as though you're an authority on the matter.

Hypocrite....

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Yes...because 1600 something architects and engineers, out over a million registered in the US alone, is just soooo convincing...

The real deal is..... who cares about how many they have?

Without any scholarly papers that catches any attention from any other engineers from around the world, the numbers they have mean nothing.

And there have been exactly ZERO papers like this.

None.

You'd think that these guys would of attempted something by now. I've seen zero reaction. After 10 years.

That tells me just how true they hold their convictions....