Guys, claims must be backed up with SOURCES to make a good argument.
For example: John is likely to be wrong if there are no or very limited sources. Can anyone PROVE that the "articles" from him were ACTUALLY written at the time claimed? Were his claims really made at such and such a date or soon after?
To prove him wrong, find something contradictory (proof by contradiction in scientific terms) and to prove him right, confirm he has a near perfect track record by strict interpretation. Avoid arguing with his vague comments.
About sept 11, consider this: Do you really think there won't be a a major event of ANY sort within the next year? Every year, something significant surely happens somewhere in the world - war starts, famine ends, balloons burst and people get splinters. By this reasoning, its definetly possible to say that "america will be attacked in such and such a year or in such and such a decade". The rest is left to interpretation. If Sept 11 didn't happen, how could it have been interpreted? By Saddaam's threats? The rising up of Hells' Angels? North Korea? A cat?
Even in the BIBLE it says that false prophets will come and deceive many.
Take on the ideals of a debunking website such as
www.snopes.com and start using several sources for each claim not linked to each other.
Nick