400 Medical Professionals added to PatriotsQuestion911
A new page containing 400 Medical Professionals has been added to the PatriotsQuestion911.com website at http://patriotsquestion911.com/medical.html.
This page lists many prominent medical professionals who have publicly spoken out in support of 9/11 Truth, including:
* Jonathan Weisbuch, MD, MPH – Former Chief Health Officer for the States of Wyoming and North Dakota, as well as Los Angeles County, CA, and Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale)
* Mary Ellen Bradshaw, MD – Past President, American Association of Public Health Physicians. Former Chief, Bureau of School Health Services, Department of Public Health, Washington, DC
* Herbert J. Hoffman, MA, PhD – Former Chief Mental Health Coordinator and Director of Manpower Development and Training, Massachusetts Department of Mental Health.
* John W. Travis, MD, MPH – Physician and author. A leading figure in the Wellness Movement.
* Douglas Nixon Everingham, MB BS – Former Minister for Health and former Member of Parliament, Australia
* Joanna Santa Barbara, MB BS, FRANZCP, FRCP(C) – Past Vice President, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)
The website now features statements by more than 2,500 credible individuals that criticize, question, or contradict the official account of 9/11, with more being added all the time.
* 400+ Medical Professionals
* 200+ Senior Military Officers, Intelligence Services and Law Enforcement Veterans, and Government Officials
* 1,100+ Engineers and Architects
* 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
* 400+ Professors
* 300+ 9/11 Survivors and Victim Family Members
* 200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
I would like to thank these individuals for having the courage and integrity to publicly support the search for the truth about 9/11, an event that has been used to justify two wars of aggression that to date have caused the death of more than one million innocent people and also used to justify a substantial reduction in the fundamental civil liberties of the citizens of the United States and other democracies around the world.
Please note that the PatriotsQuestion911 website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with the website. The site is an online reference collection of their statements.
Please help spread awareness of this new information. Health care is one of the largest industries in the U.S., employing more than 14 million people. I am hopeful this list of responsible medical professionals who have criticized the official account of 9/11 will help more people wake up to 9/11 Truth and encourage public support for a new investigation.
- Alan Miller's blog
- Login to post comments
Thank you-
Alan
THANK YOU ALAN
Alan,
I just want to take this opportunity to thank you for your creative and tireless ongoing efforts in the crucial matter of 9/11 Truth.
Your website is one of the first resources I cite to those I try to communicate with. It is the perfect smack-down for those who pitifully try to pull the “tinfoil hat-whacko-lunatic” rhetoric.
You are the true patriot and we are all in your debt.
Drops in the river
Thanks Alan! We are all drops in the river, and the river is growing steadily. It will be hard to ignore the Truth Movement no matter how many sandbanks are built around it. I appreciate your steady efforts to illustrate the wide array of people who have chosen to speak out about 9/11.
Good Job But ...
.... on the main link to the Site, could someone please take down the four guys standing in front of a sign.
I do not want to in any way diminish their effort or say or do anything to deny to them recognition for that effort, but I think the Patriots site is absolutely the strongest weapon in our arsenal in making our case to the public. The strength of its impact is that you can reference the Gravitas of all these people who question the Official Story - followed by the providing the link. But then the first thing someone sees in clicking that link is four normal looking people standing in front of a sign. First impressions can be important. I've stopped linking to the main page because of that graphic. I link to the Professors instead and sometimes other sub-groups.
I'd be happy to contribute to the purchase of something worthy of framing or a plaque or whatever for these enterprising guys, but that Web Page should be about the hundreds of people with very impressive credentials - to which we can easily reference in any setting and there is no rebuttal to it. None.
But that graphic makes for an easy sound-byte comeback in our sound-byte media.
Again, what a hell of a job.
Again, what a hell of a job. I'll spread the information as good as I can...
This group could be in the
100,000+ in a short period of time.
Could and Should.
We may have to work for it however...
Thank-you so much for this important work Alan !
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/medical.html#Beeth
MP911Truth chooses to include
MP911Truth chooses to include people like Ed Kendrick who actively promotes 911missinglinks, totally racist disinformation. He is also the author of Rediscover911.com which is so full of crap that I made a response site http://www.rediscover911.org .
Interesting problem
Disinformationists etc are an important part of the evidence. Perhaps one way to deal with them is to include them in a separate section or to label them as suspect. Any opinions on this?
It also might be a good idea to provide an explanation and links that show why such a person is considered suspect. (I'm talking about on the PatriotsQuestion911 site, for this.)
I dunno
Labeling people as "suspect" is tricky business, but I checked out "Rediscover11" and I have similar concerns as Jules. As 911truth gets a higher public profile, we need to vet everything.
Great job
on rediscover911.org!
I also wish that Alan Miller would show a little discretion with the names he adds to his site. He has been entirely unresponsive to these issues over the years, only saying that he doesn't make judgment calls. But you've really got to draw the line somewhere. As it stands now, we've got TV fakery, no planes and not-so-thinly-veiled anti-Jewish hate represented on a site that is very prominently distributed within the movement.
______________________
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
truthaction.org/forum
twitter.com/truthaction
Alan,
great job. PatriotsQuestion911 is among the topmost sites. You once spoke of difficulty in finding a publisher for a book based on the information you've gathered. If you can ever find a way...such a book could work wonders. For one, it might lift 911Truth beyond the label of "conspiracy theory".
no planes
>>(Or...they could be ignored? But I'm not sure which is best.)
Like the work of David Ray Griffin, PatriotsQuestion and other sites by Alan Miller will always feature the claims that a real plane never hit the Pentagon , will link to the Pilots group as though they do meaningful work beyond only promoting "no planes", and will link to 'Physics911', which hosts "no planes" papers by writers such as George Nelson (all the planes were fake) and David Shayler (holograms hit the WTC).
It's the classic mix of offensive nonsense with strong evidence, and the newbies joining the sites don't know any better. Sites like this now will drive up traffic, in general, to "no planes" -- just in time for the 10th Anniversary.
Too bad it all has to be bagged together like that so that every one of those sites promotes the ideas that real passengers, real planes and real impact events never happened.
I wonder if these medical professionals have considered the claims their site is linking to.
Sorry...
I edited out my parenthetical comment you quoted--before I noticed you'd quoted it.
The reason I find problematic the question of whether or not to keep the disinformationists is this: some of them are so absurd that they cast further suspicion on the Official story. They appear to exist only to disrupt the genuine Truth movement. Their obvious absurdity is a form of evidence. If kept, however, I think they should be relegated to another section or labeled as likely disinformationists. Maybe things are getting too tangled for this to be easy to do.
Have you communicated with Alan Miller about this problem? This all seems such a shame, because there is so much valuable evidence on PatriotsQuestion911.
Alan's site has served to get a lot of people into 911Truth.
Yes
Yes, it is a shame because he's put a huge amount of work into it and a lot of it is great work, but of course, that's exactly why it becomes almost forbidden to criticize when the movement is basically all volunteer . . .
I and many people communicated to Alan Miller. Initially I was concerned that he was continuing to feature Jim Fetzer to the public glowingly, among others who were known disruptors and advocates of nonsense. But he was not interested in making any changes. Some people I know even refused to be featured on Patriots, and stated that it was because he was featuring people making nonsense claims and who were open disruptors. So eventually I wrote this essay:
Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html
"The website PatriotsQuestion911.com makes a strong case for the important fact that hundreds of notable, credible, professional, and experienced people have serious questions about the official story of the 9/11 attacks. These include government officials, scholars, household-name actors, retired military officers, pilots, and even 9/11 family members, shown in rich color photographs and paired with quotes in their own words along with relevant links. Creator Alan Miller and others helping him have done a laudable job of tracking down and documenting these hundreds of individuals of note and presenting them in an appealing format for easy public understanding of the scope of concerns with the official story.
Unfortunately, the site currently also functions in a different and opposite way, albeit subtle. By presenting, directly alongside the serious and professional notable individuals, the advocates of ridiculous nonsense claims about the 9/11 attacks -- space weapons, nukes, "TV fakery" and even holograms -- the website functions to undermine a serious reader's overall belief that the site, the community, and the individuals are actually as credible as their titles suggest. This is not an extensive criticism of the site, but a specific concern which can easily be corrected, but yet has not been. Currently, individuals like Norman Mineta, Curt Weldon, Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Heinberg are placed on the same lists with Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler, Judy Wood and James Fetzer. Given the history of these individuals in the 9/11 community, such mixing serves the opposite purpose of the ostensible premise of the site.
If one actually clicks on the links of these last four individuals, listens to the talks, or reads the material, there is no question that mixed with the real claims, the bizarre core of what they are advocating amounts to utter nonsense."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html
Victronix,
In short, I'd much rather have PatriotsQuestion911 around than not.
I emailed Alan several months ago, suggesting he compile a book based on his website, and suggested he deal in some way with the more obvious mis/dis-info on it. As best I can tell, he wants to record as is, and not modify.
You also criticized DRG. No one should be above criticism, but it was he--with all his imperfections--who brought Richard Gage into the Truth movement. Richard himself is imperfect, but he is one of the most valuable people we have.
911Blogger, Journal of 911 Studies, AE911Truth, 911Research (thanks for your work there), and PatriotsQuestion911 are the five sites to which I always direct newbies.
I wish Alan did things differently, but I'm glad he's there, and I thank him again for the information that he's gathered.
Alan...would you care to chime in about this?
Rotten Apples
I have to essentially agree with Victronix's statement, but the rotten apples don't necessarily spoil the barrel any more than in any list of associations. Every group has it's unique additions to the mix: eg. Ron Paul and the Republican Party, or Dennis Kuchinich and the Democratic Party. Yes, I'd be happier with the extreme positions weeded out, but the majority of the roster is quite compelling, and should attract the curious to the overall message we are advocating.
beyond meaningful extremes
Yes, this feeling is very common. But these are different types of extremes -- Ron Paul doesn't claim that war in Iraq never happened, that it was actually a series of faked videos. If he did, he'd be kicked out because he'd be considered mentally ill and likely removed from the congress. That's the more realistic comparison.
Disagree on Pilots Group
"will link to the Pilots group as though they do meaningful work beyond only promoting 'no planes'"
I like the Pilots Group for Two Reasons:
A) I think it matters to a lot of people to have military types standing up to this hoax, because questioning 9/11 is so often hit with anti-Patriotism.
B) I don't know where you get this theme that the Pilots say "No Planes." What the pilots mostly say is that there is no way on earth those skinny, inept kids could have executed those maneuvers ---- and there is no way they could -- it's nearly on the same order as the physics of the Towers falling - especially the supposed descent path of the Boeing into the Pentagon - it practically aerodynamically impossible. And look at the passenger list for that flight. And then Read Northwoods Operation - no real passengers on that early model of this type of False Flag. I am not saying you lead with or promote that item, but I also don't think it hurts to read what all those pilots have to say. In fact, I once discussed the matter with a neighbor who said he had heard from people he respected as to how the buildings could fall, but then he admitted to me that he had friends who were pilots who told him .... "impossible maneuvers."
credibility
Broadly yes, military types are great. The problem is when they are shown making claims like how it was impossible for a plane to have hit the Pentagon (meaning no real passengers died, etc) -- their credibility is then out the window with probably the vast majority of military people who see that as complete nonsense. So the whole purpose -- to gain credibilty -- is contradicted.
I recommend Frank Legge's paper on this issue:
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
Frank Legge (BSc, PhD)
15 February 2010
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug...
As stated above, the authorities could easily show what hit the Pentagon, as they have many video tapes of the event. They also have the debris from the attack, many pieces of which will have serial numbers and other means of exact identification. That they choose not to provide this information must be because confusion serves their purpose. The situation to bear in mind is that the perpetrators may be keeping evidence in reserve for an additional specific purpose. Evidence that proves that a 757 did hit the Pentagon would function as their insurance policy. If they feel endangered by the progress of public opinion toward demanding a new investigation, and realizing that this will likely lead to criminal charges and convictions, they will produce this evidence. As many members of the 9/11 truth movement believe that no 757 hit the Pentagon, this evidence will throw the movement into disarray and create crippling loss of credibility over issues which are far more important. It will become much more difficult to argue our prime evidence convincingly, that explosives were used at the WTC.
Credibility
Victronix -
I think we see eye to eye on some of this - but not sure.
I see a difference in what you choose to debate in a public media forum and what you strongly challenge. I think it is not necessary to publicly challenge things where you can look bad or are weak. I would never say that "no plane" hit the Pentagon. But the article you link to concedes many of the points that these pilots make - which includes that the plane probably had an auto-piloting mechanism flying it - in fact - this is very likely given the maneuvering. It is also very likely that it was not a 757 - but a different drone aircraft made to appear as one. Your article says it is theoretically possible that a 757 could fly that path ---but it's extremely unlikely (if not impossible). Which would explain the failure to produce video or serial number parts. Your theory that holding back that info is some sorta "gotcha" plan is .... interesting, but very unlikely.
The Pentagon attack was a very classic and fairly obvious "Operation Northwoods" playbook, especially when you consider the passenger list. The use of the Solicitor General's wife was hugely effective upon myself, and it has since been proven to involve concocted calls. Now there is a major blow to the Credibility of the Government's story - when you combine that lie with (1) Video lock-down, (2) Serial # lock-down, (3) tons of expert Pilot criticism on the flying and (4) you can put all that right next to an actual Operation Northwoods Plan and show people this kinda thing has been written up in the past. I think it is good for people who take the trouble to go to the Patriots' site to have this stuff to read.
But I agree that when I debate in public -- I don't even bother to mention the Pentagon. In fact --- I don't even bother to debate the collapse initiation on the Towers (I put that in the same category as the Pentagon), because they at least have an explanation for that (same with the Pentagon), though both are fantastical. I stick with what they have no explanation for.
And BTW .... I think holding onto the Mineta testimony is not the best thing for credibility. There is no reason to jump to the Administration orchestrating this thing -- you lose tons of people right there -- they refuse to believe that. That's the argument our critics love the most. "So you are saying the American Government did such in such to it's own people ....." No need to start there. I keep my arguments very tight and very confined. I keep them to the scientifically impossible and to matters for which there is no contradiction - no other side - none. At least nothing that is credible or supported by the government. Like the failure of the Towers after collapse initiation. They can yap all day - but I can say with authority that it's scientifically impossible and they have Nothing, Nada, butkiss to contradict me. And if they resist -- I challenge them to tell me what it is. And if they mention "Popular Mechanics" --- They're dead.
But if Newbies go to a Site like the Patriots' site and read the military and pilots' accounts regarding the Pentagon -- it can be very compelling for them and I would leave it there.
Alan has decided all stay....
I think it is a difficult thing to start deciding who should be at the Patriots site and who should not, so Alan has them all.
In my opinion certain folk that are proven villains, liers and disinfo agents should be pulled. Deciding who they are is a little difficult but I would say we could get 90% plus that would finger, Fetzer, Reynolds and Lear for a start. Really we are only talking around twenty out of 2,000 or around 1% which is probably better than a group of 2,000 chosen from the public? 1 in 4 suffers some mental health issues I read recently:)
Any way Patriots is more good than bad by a great margin and that is why I support it as is, as Alan wishes.
Regards John
Balsamo is simply not credible!
Many of the Pilots group are great, but their recent productions are way of the mark and simply dangerous!
Balsamo has not been able to get on with the large majority in this movement and is unable to communicate civilly with any that criticise his speculative assertions. He also protects and harbours obvious disinfo advocates like John Lear?
Any way Pilots are currently not linked to by any of the more reputable 9/11 Sites for good reason.
767-200's can and did do the speeds seen on 9/11 and they also hit the towers as was seen by millions on TV and thousands in person. Any that say otherwise can not produce a shred of hard evidence in support of the theories.
Kind regards John
You also said the same thing about CIT
...namely that they were not credible. But look what happened when you took on the challenge of debating him. :-)
That being said, I am nowhere near as familiar with the more recent Pilots presentations (too much on my plate) so I'll withhold any firm determination on the merits of their presentations until further notice.
Personally though, I like the Pilots discussion/research forums.
Adam what your implying is garbage!
CIT have done interesting work and I have never censored it, actually I have disseminated it to my list. Their assertion that a plane flew over the Pentagon is by no means proven, this is and has always been my problem with them. I was one of few that was prepared to debate them over this and as you will hear in the debate, all I ever said against them personally was that they were two Reggae drummers out of LA etc when they decided that the "fly over" was as important to the movement as WTC 7??? I allowed my self to be debated simply to find us unity, and you mock me for doing the dirty work no other would do...good on you:(
Balsamo WILL NOT debate me over "impossible speed" and he has made numerous false claims in his latest video and has clearly mislead the public to the 9/11 Truth Movements detriment. Ever wondered why none support him with a link at the major 9/11 Truth sites, it's no conspiracy, it simply that most see what I see "a problem"!
The simple fact in this matter is that;
1. I have flown the the Boeing Accredited Simulator at speeds greater than seen on 9/11
2. I have checked with a Senior Simulator Quality Control Technician that the data the sim is based on comes from the Boeing Flight Test Data
3. I have spoken to dozens of 767 pilots who agree the plane most likely could do 500 Knots
4. Balsamos's Egypt Air analogy is flawed because he has no idea why it broke up and I maintain that it would most likely be the "transonic speed" not the "equivalent" airspeed which he will not debate
5. Lt Col Robert Bowman agrees (as an Dr of Aeronautics and as a Pilot) that I am 100& correct when I question the evidence supplied by Balsamo to prove impossible speed as he agrees it is possible and actually happened...did you not see the planes?
6. Air-traffic Controller and Pilot Robin Hordon agrees with me also and has stated we have a continuous primary radar track of both 175 and 11, making it impossible in his view the planes were swapped
7. Much of the latest film "WTC Attack" is simply wrong, for example...Balsamo shows us an aircraft losing control of it's "elevator trim tabs" at high speed, the problem being a large commercial high speed jet does not have elevator trim tabs, they have a movable horizontal stabilizer because of the high speeds they achieve and could possibly achieve in an emergency?
Just to mention a few things of the top of my head...
But the single most important thing to remember is that Balsamo has not a single shred of actual evidence that a 767 can not do the airspeeds shown, no test data, no statement from Boeing etc etc. He also has not produced any evidence that shows a plane was swapped or that any "supped up" 767-200 even exists to swap with it.
By making the assertion the planes were swapped or not there at all(as he offers no opinion on the hologram theory) is not just dissinfo without proof, it is a slap in the face of the victims and to their families that had loved ones on those flights. Balsamo is hell bent on proving the official story false, great, but doing it in spite of the evidence and in spite of the victims is near criminal in my view.
Please stick to subjects you are qualified to comment on and please judge me by my record within this movement.
I would also ask you Adam to take a long hard look at yourself, and wonder what your trying to achieve at this website?
Regards John
Please understand I was most impressed
with your decision to debate Craig and I have already said that I will withhold further opinions on the Pilots presentations until I am more well versed on the subject matter.
With regard to sticking to subjects I'm qualified to comment on, that would definitely be CIT's material as I've studied it exhaustively including the counterarguments from their most vocal critics. Having studied the entire thing thoroughly, I would be willing to bet my life that CIT is not a "disinfo op," whether wittingly (professionally) or not; yet there are prominent people in the movement who insist with absolute certainty that they are disinfo. You admitted you fell for this "disinfo" speil and retracted it after the debate.
Also, I speak not of anything you ever said against CIT personally.
What I speak of is the fact that you went into the debate feeling certain that there were "dozens of South Path witnesses" yet when asked, you were unable to produce one; you mentioned Albert Hemphill but Craig very methodically deconstructed Hemphill's testimony and showed very logically that Hemphill's testimony does not in any way shape or form point to a South of Citgo path; indeed, to the contrary, it actually confirms the North Path because Hemphill clearly describes the plane as flying over the Navy Annexe. You even conceded this point.
This still hasn't stopped a few of the detractors' blog pages from deceptively naming Hemphill as a South Side witness, blogs which, once upon a time, you trusted as solidly researched.
I guess my point is, just because someone firmly declares that so-and-so is not credible, doesn't mean I take the person at face value. That's all. And it doesn't mean that I suspect any nefarious motives on your part either; it simply means I'm a skeptic of ALL sides.
We don't see eye to eye, and that's fine, we can agree to disagree. I do think that the North Path has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt because while it is true that witnesses are fallible and make mistakes, there is stastically a virtual zero chance of all 13 witnesses being wrong in essentially the same way. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, the witnesses in the most appropriate vantage points place the plane north of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annexe, and north of the Citgo. To my satisfaction this has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. And if you accept the north path as proven, you have to accept the flyover because the damage to both the poles and the building is only consistent with a completely South approach, and there is most certainly no damage of any kind to support a "north approach impact." And of course, we finally have Roosevelt Roberts' (a name never mentioned in Legge's paper btw) testimony of a commercial aircraft flying away from the building within 10 seconds of the massive explosion.
However, if you disagree with me, that's fine; we can all coexist. I don't dislike you; in fact I actually rather like you and really enjoyed watching you're street action schooling a pedestrian on WTC7.
Finally, my aim has been truth seeking and telling since day one.
John -- I Still do not get Your Point.
"767-200's can and did do the speeds seen on 9/11 and they also hit the towers as was seen by millions on TV and thousands in person. Any that say otherwise can not produce a shred of hard evidence in support of the theories."
These top military pilots say that these patsies could not possibly fly these planes at the speeds and making the maneuvers that were performed. What's not credible about that? I certainly believe it.
There's a heck of a lot of 9/11 activity that does not help the credibility of the movement, but I have never seen anyone deriding the movement go after military pilots. That's a losing argument for them.
It's kinda like going head to head with Ventura - that's a fight they don't want.
Okay John --- I just watched one of your video clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zv7bESSMyM&feature=related
I understand your focus and appreciate it -- but I can tell you that you're not someone who should take it upon yourself to be a gatekeeper of credibility. Trust me -- if you put your video clip next to the testimonials of top-flight military pilots ---- and you show both to the average person unacquainted with 9/11, which do you think is more likely to be persuasive to the average person that there is a problem with the 9/11 story?
The military pilots are going to be more persuasive.
It all depends upon who your audience is and how much time you have. You were much too defensive in that interview, going up against someone who was prepared to hit all the right "skeptic" buttons. You fell into the same trap that you accuse the pilots of falling into. If the hijackers were not flying those planes into the building - then who did? If the buildings came down from a demolition process that takes months to prepare then who did it?
Both claims are difficult for the average person to swallow in a short interview or sound-byte. But at least the top pilots can make their claim with convincing authority.
Hi there...you don't get because you missed it?
I have not time for this today as I have work to do...
I do not believe that the hijackers' were in control of the planes, this does not change the facts at all that I have stated.
SOME PEOPLE don't seem to understand the difference between making assertions as facts and simply offering an idea of what might of happened during discussion with researchers.
Making an assertion that the planes were swapped or that the the planes could not do what we saw without evidence is bad for the long term goals of this movement, period.
The populist short sighted approach that you suggest is great at getting us viewed like people asking for answers regarding "Area 51" for example. While groups like AE911Truth have recently received support from the Jersey Girls by sticking to the facts, what has the pilots group achieved?
Think again....
Regards John
"The populist short sighted
"The populist short sighted approach that you suggest is great at getting us viewed like people asking for answers regarding "Area 51" for example. While groups like AE911Truth have recently received support from the Jersey Girls by sticking to the facts, what has the pilots group achieved?"
Well we're talking about two different things. We're talking about the Pilots Group being included on the 9/11Patriots Website. That's a no-brainer. Who they are and what they have to say are very compelling -- not to mention being obviously true as you state yourself. You state you don't believe those patsies were flying those planes. I am pretty sure the Jersey Girls have identified that problem with the story as a very legitimate question that has not been properly answered.
The AE group is distinguishable from the Pilots due to their dogged public efforts - not because of who has the more compelling story.
You talk about courtroom proof. I am a trial attorney with 25 years of experience. If I am putting this case on trial to a jury, you can be damn sure that I am putting those pilots on the stand, that I am reviewing with them in detail their flying careers, and then reviewing with them the flying that occurred on that day and their expert opinions as to whether those patsies could have performed those aerial gymnastics.
Anyone trying to cross-examine those pilots and lay a glove on them - will get their Ass handed to them.
The same is not true for Richard Gage. In addition to being a trial attorney, I also have a degree in physics and when you get into a detailed and technical discussion of how a building falls or does not fall ... you can get run around and bogged down in scientific minutiae that will lose people.
The AE public and group efforts have helped - but it's not an either or choice between them and the pilots.
Ok I get your point:)
I have no problem with Pilots and the Patriots site my problem is with Pilotsfor911truth.
Thanks for the post.
Regards John
Thank You Alan!
Patriots Question 9/11 is one of the best websites to share with newcomers. Disinformation is out of our control and should not be focused on too heavily. If a newcomer is looking to debunk alternative 9/11 information, they will be drawn towards the weakest arguments. If a newcomer is seeking the truth, they will look at all the information and evaluate it as a whole.
Yes thanks Alan for you great contribution:)
More great stats to through at the debunkers and more importantly to explain to the public!
Kind regards John