Concocted Scenarios Doing Violence to Logic and Reason

Mike,

You linked to a page directly that pushed the "no plane at the Pentagon" conspiracy theory. You didn't have a problem with that. You wrote, "Good summary here. Except for the claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon, of course." This is a theory that you have said was wrong. You even said it was a false theory created by secret agents to make the 9/11 truth movement look bad. [Note: The background to this is that Mike says he doesn't want to link to playlists of videos sent to him because he says he doesn't want to give his readers the idea he agrees with videos which play after the one he links to.]

Mike, I have proven that things you wrote are inaccurate. (4 days ago, for example, I showed you that your site claims that "Bhutto said that Osama Bin Laden was murdered & the person responsible may be behind the attempts to kill her." That simply is not true, she said that the former military officer may be behind the attempts to kill her, NOT that Omar Sheikh was. That is literally what the words she spoke said yet you got it wrong.) When I prove these things, you don't ever seem to stop and question if you are getting things right, you don't seem to pause to rethink your position.

If we are ever going to get out of this crisis, we need people to make a sincere effort to look at and think about the facts. Did you ever consider that you are getting things wrong and withholding info from people and that info could allow them to form an accurate opinion?

Part of your reply to me was, "therefore unless she is lying, she truly believes Osama was murdered." For the life of me I can't understand how you can make that claim after watching my Bhutto video. And you give no explanation at all about why you say you disagree with the Bhutto video. The video PROVES she DIDN'T think Osama was murdered or dead because in interviews before AND AFTER the Frost interview she talked about bin Laden in the context of him being alive. Why not think about that?

And it is so illogical how you think a claim made by the Taliban that bin Laden "died a natural and quiet death natural death" supports a claim of murder.

People are sick of all the errors and inconsistencies and viewers are telling me they want me to point out specifically how your website and Alex Jones are getting all of these things wrong. I want to give you an opportunity to at least try to defend these things you are doing. I am sure you don't want to be known as a man who irrationally and stubbornly refused to apply logic to one of the most serious issues we face as Americans.

What do you think it looks like to refuse to give your readers the info which clarifies all these issues? Again, why aren't all the testimonies from all these firemen sufficient to debunk CD? For example, WTC7 was visibly undergoing structural failures WELL BEFORE it collapsed. I gave you a link to a fireman explaining that the building's structural integrity was not there and it was going to collapse. He explains why WTC7 was going to collapse: "See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building." What are people supposed to think when you refuse to give your readers a link to this info? And those observations were passed on to the press which is why WTC7 was expected to collapse. The BBC made the mistake of reporting it "had collapsed" because someone obviously confused the prediction and assumed it already had.

What is extremely frustrating is the irrational lengths you go to to explain away the proof that it was not CD. For you to argue that secret agents would think it necessary to tell the BBC to report that WTC7 had already collapsed is grotesque. You are in such denial about the fact that people expected WTC7 to collapse that you refuse to acknowledge what the firemen said and instead concoct a scenario which does violence to logic and reason. And the PHOTOS of the bowing columns of the twin towers, for that matter, which prove the structural integrity was being compromised WELL BEFORE the collapse. That ISN'T a "controlled demolition." Could you please respond to these points? What do you want me to tell people?

The rest of us must live in the real world where the threats are real and only compounded by the misdirection of potential activists.

-Tom