Snoozguru (is that Bhairitu?) said: You would have been well advised not to use "RationalWiki" which skeptics don't even like.
SD: I am not relying on RationalWiki as an authority. However, it provides some credible counter arguments to some 9/11 points that you (and others, such as O'keefe in related video) have raised. I don't find all the points raised in the 9/11 section of RationalWiki particular relevant or well considered. The same points that I drew upon are found from a number of alternative sources. RationalWiki simply compiled otherwise existing information is a convenient format (for me). I hope you will address (at least some) of the specific counter points that I listed. I hope you will not not blanketly discredit or disregard the counterpoints because you are not a fan of the site that compiled them from many other sources. I do not have a rigid stance on many 911 issues and am not trying to win any sort of debate. You raised some interesting points. Upon research I found,further information that, until refuted or discredited, appears to counter some of your your points. Not the end of the story in my view. Successive exchanges of points and rational counterpoints is at least one means to get further towards the bottom of things. Snoozeguru: Those of us who think there is something more to a case than reported don't call ourselves "conspiracy theorists." SD: I don't like the term "conspiracy theorist either as I outline in a prior post this morning. I was responding to Turq's (to me useful) articles -- but pointing out the pitfalls of terms stemming from "conspiracy".
