Very well said.
We should enter into a 9/11 thread with mutual respect, understand that we both believe in our views just as strongly as our opposites in the
debate and stay on topic. I don’t understand why anyone would be against this.
And on top of that, everyone should enter a debate with an open and flexible mind.
When your opponent brings a strong and convincing argument to the table, don't be afraid to admit it.
And find out immediately how to fit that new insight in your line of arguments. And when you can't, you HAVE to admit to your self that there must be
a problem with your part of the argumentation.
A good example of such an insight was my debate with three JREF members who came to this board frequently too.
They managed to convince me (at that time a strong believer in the possibility of a fly-over at the Pentagon) that Roosevelt Roberts words were
totally twisted by Pilots for Truth and CIT members, and that they based their fly-over theory for a big part on his -by them- twisted words.
So I confronted them at their forum with my new insight, and told them -with arguments- that their fly-over theory was not very likely. And gave them
my arguments that showed them that a plane that came flying low from over the Navy Annex, then passed just north of the CITGO gas station, still could
impact at the second floor slab of the Pentagon's west wall. At a lower speed than the official one. And that fitted all those NoC witnesses from
That debate quickly ended with my banning from their forums, the same fate as a few other old timers from ATS experienced also there.
They are not flexible enough to adept new insights in their thought patterns.
Which is a pity, since they unearthed a heap of very helpful aeronautical details regarding the 9/11 flights.
The problem is, that they also came to a few very wrong conclusions, such as the real departure gate of flight 77 at Dulles Int. Airport the morning
of 9/11/2001. It was in fact the same gate as it always left from. And I proved it to them in my thread about it here, but they still can't bring
themselves to correct their front pages for the right gate.
Another website and some bloggers proved them wrong too on their ACARS messages subject, but they also can't bring themselves to correct their pages
about that too. They still have their page and posts up, where they say that the planes were still in the air after the moments they crashed, because
they found ACARS messages send to those planes after the crash times. Their arguments were clearly refuted, and still they stubbornly keep that
misinformation up at their site.
A site many fresh researchers see as a professional pilots gathering, where they expect professional answers from. Sadly, that's not true for a few
very important pieces of the 9/11 planes and flightpaths puzzle.
Thus they show a great deal of bad science for everyone to see.
That's why I don't mind what their opinion of me is, I still can read and use their other correct arguments in my own thought processes, and am
grateful for their part of the puzzle that they have offered, and hopefully still offer.
Without their website, we would undoubtedly miss a big aeronautical information chunk of that 9/11 puzzle.
Sadly enough, their owner has a very strange interpretation of how to lead such a site.
And I still firmly belief that the NoC witnesses interviewed by CIT, were obviously telling the truth as they saw it.
Too many of them are there, to question the overall picture which can be extracted from all their statements.
They all saw A 77 come low from over the Annex roofs center, and passed at just a bit more than treetop level just north of that gas station, to end
up in the west wall at the Pentagon.
Which contradicts the officially pushed theory of a south of that gas station flying A 77 strongly, and was the main reason for many 9/11 researchers
to start checking up on the official theories for all 9/11 flights.