Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ali smack

9/11 theorist who changed his mind

51 posts in this topic

its a sad state of affairs, this war of influence on the minds ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet some of those insults are from teenagers who play video games all day and abuse girl gamers too

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see what changed ol' Charlie's mind. It would be interesting to talk to Charlie and listen to him prove the OCT. Ain't gonna happen.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie probably just got tired of it all ... the whole thing has a way of wearing one down ... just don't care anymore is my guess ...

~

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather like a modern version of those who admire the Emperor's New Clothes, passionately, and those who see no clothes....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

988903_10152851417590475_466847239_n.jpg

sometimes the difference is a matter of life and ....

~

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are so upset with him for changing his mind. Those people were not his friends to begin with if they turned on him just for that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

246610_10152767401670475_664273957_n.jpg

there's an old china adage similar but his will do ...

aye .. this will do very well ...

~

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://www.telegraph...d-his-mind.html

I think it's terrible he's getting death threats now because he doesn't believe in it anymore!

It is unfortunate what he has gone through. Check out this video. Charlie and Brent.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-He9IfXes[/media]

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems unlikely exposives were used to blow up the towers.but not only that. the amount of people envolved in covering it up. as far as i know no real whistleblowers have come out.

I may be wrong so if I am i'll be happy to see evidence.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph...d-his-mind.html

I think it's terrible he's getting death threats now because he doesn't believe in it anymore!

He threatens the 9/11 Conspiracy Indu$$try. If folks stop believing they stop buying books and videos, stop watching the shows, and paying to attend conferences.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It seems unlikely exposives were used to blow up the towers.but not only that. the amount of people envolved in covering it up. as far as i know no real whistleblowers have come out.

I may be wrong so if I am i'll be happy to see evidence.

If you were a curious and open-minded person, most likely you would have already informed yourself about the evidence. After all, it has been 11+ years now.

There are more than 2000 architects and engineers who are on record as opposing the official explanation as put forth by NIST and other government organizations. There is ample evidence that explosives of some sort were used, but one must be curious in order to perceive it. www.AE911Truth.org

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were a curious and open-minded person, most likely you would have already informed yourself about the evidence. After all, it has been 11+ years now.

There are more than 2000 architects and engineers who are on record as opposing the official explanation as put forth by NIST and other government organizations. There is ample evidence that explosives of some sort were used, but one must be curious in order to perceive it. www.AE911Truth.org

There is no evidence of explosives at all.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were a curious and open-minded person, most likely you would have already informed yourself about the evidence. After all, it has been 11+ years now.

There are more than 2000 architects and engineers who are on record as opposing the official explanation as put forth by NIST and other government organizations. There is ample evidence that explosives of some sort were used, but one must be curious in order to perceive it. www.AE911Truth.org

11 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and not one of the AE911T supports have actually had a scientific paper published by reputable journals?

Where is all the money going? In their pockets?

You do realize that back in 2011, Gage held a conference on 9/11 at the national AIA building. 80 attendees, not one of them an engineer or architect...right?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's going to help the truther cause, attacking one for "not believing."

Anyway, the biggest problem with the whole conspiracy is the lack of explanation as to why the "insiders" had to destroy the towers. I mean, as soon as the planes were hijacked - no matter the outcome - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened in any case. Why bother with placing explosives within the buildings at all? Why risking exposing the whole conspiracy?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's going to help the truther cause, attacking one for "not believing."

Anyway, the biggest problem with the whole conspiracy is the lack of explanation as to why the "insiders" had to destroy the towers. I mean, as soon as the planes were hijacked - no matter the outcome - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened in any case. Why bother with placing explosives within the buildings at all? Why risking exposing the whole conspiracy?

We can also add that the United States didn't invade Afghanistan when terrorist planted and detonated a huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993. In that bombing, the steel beams were sitting in the middle of the crater and yet, WTC1 remained standing. We didn't invade Iraq when terrorist blew up the USS Cole and we didn't invade anyone when terrorist blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and not one of the AE911T supports have actually had a scientific paper published by reputable journals?

Where is all the money going? In their pockets?

You do realize that back in 2011, Gage held a conference on 9/11 at the national AIA building. 80 attendees, not one of them an engineer or architect...right?

To me, the testimony of experts is useful, but in the end I make up my own mind. Because experts must be closely examined, in the end. For example, an expert whose very financial existence depends upon government contracts is suspect. It is possible, or even likely, that they will make statements that serve their employer. So the opinions of companies like Greenhorne & O'Mara, or Skidmore Owings & Merrill are to be taken with a major grain of salt.

I make my own analysis and draw conclusions based upon common sense. Do you?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's going to help the truther cause, attacking one for "not believing."

Anyway, the biggest problem with the whole conspiracy is the lack of explanation as to why the "insiders" had to destroy the towers. I mean, as soon as the planes were hijacked - no matter the outcome - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened in any case. Why bother with placing explosives within the buildings at all? Why risking exposing the whole conspiracy?

There are many many POSSIBLE explanations for motives to attack the towers and the Pentagon. Quite a rich array of possibilities, including financial gain and destruction of evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the testimony of experts is useful, but in the end I make up my own mind. Because experts must be closely examined, in the end. For example, an expert whose very financial existence depends upon government contracts is suspect.

You can't dismiss scientific facts just because of where the financial backing comes from. That is being biased.

It is possible, or even likely, that they will make statements that serve their employer. So the opinions of companies like Greenhorne & O'Mara, or Skidmore Owings & Merrill are to be taken with a major grain of salt.

Again, feel free to take it with a grain of salt. However, simply handwaving evidence that doesn't support your conclusion (which btw, you do quite often) is really telling.

I make my own analysis and draw conclusions based upon common sense. Do you?

I doubt you use any form of common sense since the entire stainless steel WTC facade debacle.

To answer your question, yes I do. I form my own conclusions based on my own personal analysis. In subjects that I have little to no knowledge in, I turn to reading scientific papers and posts by people relevant in the field with an objective mind.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

I'm not dismissing scientific facts, I am questioning the ethics and loyalties of companies and experts whose jobs depend upon government contracts. Indeed, I embrace scientific facts and wish that you would.

Really? You're still hung up on my inaccurate statement regarding SS v. aluminum? That is funny. Funny, but typical of how desperate and trivial people become when attempting to defend the indefensible. :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

I'm not dismissing scientific facts, I am questioning the ethics and loyalties of companies and experts whose jobs depend upon government contracts. Indeed, I embrace scientific facts and wish that you would.

Really? You're still hung up on my inaccurate statement regarding SS v. aluminum? That is funny. Funny, but typical of how desperate and trivial people become when attempting to defend the indefensible. :innocent:

Yes I am hung up on that argument. Why? It actually shows to what measure you are willing to not accept that you are wrong. It's a classic example of denial to support your conclusion.

Embrace scientific facts then BR. Regardless of your opinions on ethics and loyalty, science recognizes neither.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am hung up on that argument. Why? It actually shows to what measure you are willing to not accept that you are wrong. It's a classic example of denial to support your conclusion.

Embrace scientific facts then BR. Regardless of your opinions on ethics and loyalty, science recognizes neither.

Good morning RB, it's 7 June! It's been several months now since I admitted in front of God & Everybody here at UM that I was wrong regarding the cladding at WTC. I admitted that I was wrong in claiming that they were stainless. I was in error RB, for neither the first nor the last time in my life. I'm human, just like you.

Can we move on, or would you prefer to stay mired in that issue? Shall I go to the corner with a dunce hat on? Would that make you feel better?

I have embraced the facts RB. As Wally Miller and others said and all the pictures show, there was no Boeing at Shanksville. Further, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon. There were explosive devices of some sort at WTC.

Those are the simple facts RB. It is YOU who reject the facts. It is YOU who embrace as truth the statements of a gang of known liars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning RB, it's 7 June! It's been several months now since I admitted in front of God & Everybody here at UM that I was wrong regarding the cladding at WTC. I admitted that I was wrong in claiming that they were stainless. I was in error RB, for neither the first nor the last time in my life. I'm human, just like you.

Can we move on, or would you prefer to stay mired in that issue? Shall I go to the corner with a dunce hat on? Would that make you feel better?

I have embraced the facts RB. As Wally Miller and others said and all the pictures show, there was no Boeing at Shanksville. Further, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon. There were explosive devices of some sort at WTC.

Those are the simple facts RB. It is YOU who reject the facts. It is YOU who embrace as truth the statements of a gang of known liars.

Why keep using Wally Miller when he already publicly came forward and stated conspiracy folk are twisting his words??

You take his initial statement, then dismiss his explanation then claim coercion. Yet you have no proof of coercion other than his public statement disagrees with your opinions.

If you want to talk about liars, then let me ask you why AE911T still publicly displays the collapse of WTC 7 without the initial part showing the collapse of the penthouses? Why hide this fact?

Why have CTers posted WTC 7 collapse videos sped up to prove the free fall claims?

Why have no truther supporter published a paper in reputable science journals refuting the claims of NIST?

I can add more to this list, but I would spend all day listing the dishonesty of truthers.

Good morning RB, it's 7 June! It's been several months now since I admitted in front of God & Everybody here at UM that I was wrong regarding the cladding at WTC. I admitted that I was wrong in claiming that they were stainless. I was in error RB, for neither the first nor the last time in my life. I'm human, just like you.

Can we move on, or would you prefer to stay mired in that issue? Shall I go to the corner with a dunce hat on? Would that make you feel better?

I have embraced the facts RB. As Wally Miller and others said and all the pictures show, there was no Boeing at Shanksville. Further, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon. There were explosive devices of some sort at WTC.

Those are the simple facts RB. It is YOU who reject the facts. It is YOU who embrace as truth the statements of a gang of known liars.

Why keep using Wally Miller when he already publicly came forward and stated conspiracy folk are twisting his words??

You take his initial statement, then dismiss his explanation then claim coercion. Yet you have no proof of coercion other than his public statement disagrees with your opinions.

If you want to talk about liars, then let me ask you why AE911T still publicly displays the collapse of WTC 7 without the initial part showing the collapse of the penthouses? Why hide this fact?

Why have CTers posted WTC 7 collapse videos sped up to prove the free fall claims?

Why have no truther supporter published a paper in reputable science journals refuting the claims of NIST?

I can add more to this list, but I would spend all day listing the dishonesty of truthers.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.