Hi all,

First off, this Steve Farrell guy is a 'dedicated' skeptic, but without the hate of the SLC and JREF crowd. However, in previous threads he's said such as things as "Hani Hanjour's poor flying skills aren't evidence of anything, kameelyun." He has also rigorously defended NORAD's 'incompetence,' as well as waving away all of the controlled demolition evidence. He has handwaved away Dutch demolitionist Danny Jowenko. He has even waved away the fact that a phone call to Controlled Demolition revealed that "pull it" IS a demolition term. So I'm a bit weary about how productive the thread would actually be... Should we take this guy's bait or not? There are those here who are more knowledgeable than I, and have read more books. (I still have yet to read Ruppert or Tarpley because those books are so huge.)

Having said all that, here's how Steve opens this new thread:

"All the attention so far has been paid to the flaws in the official theory of 9/11, the Al Qaeda hijacker scenario. But any alternative theory has to stand on its own. What if we abandoned the conventional scenario for good? What should we believe actually happened on 9/11?