So you're not buying the Commission Report... and you're not going with the tinfoil hat version... but you're also not <strike>inquisitive</strike> American enough to ask questions and demand straight answers... that do stand up to scrutiny.<br><br>You'll discuss it to the point of belittling those who won't accept the blatant discrepancies that arose across the board that day... but you're complacent enough to let it all slide under the bridge with no one held accountable for that day and/or the absurdities that have followed.<br><br>We're engaged in an illegal war with Iraq at the hands of the same folks that desperately (and openly declared) they needed another Pearl Harbor! And you, being the patriot you are, can't smell the rat that's standing in front of you... giving you the finger.<br><br>I'm amazed...<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>but you're also not inquisitive American enough to ask questions and demand straight answers... that do stand up to scrutiny.<p><hr></blockquote><p>One assumption...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>...but you're complacent enough to let it all slide under the bridge with no one held accountable for that day and/or the absurdities that have followed.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Two assumptions...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And you, being the patriot you are, can't smell the rat that's standing in front of you... giving you the the finger.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Three assumptions, more...<br><br>I'm not amazed at all. It's what you do. You constantly assume that you're the only one who hasn't been bamboozled by the admin. You constantly assume that anyone who doesn't help you wave your own special banner is complacent. And you constantly assume that not buying the same theories you do equals blindness.<br><br>BTW, wasn't it you who recently said something about how little we know about each other? Short memory, I guess (hey, I left you an opening for another "sawed-off" crack). <br><br>
Agreed again.<br><br>And now that the Bush Family's involvement rears it's ugly head again<br>I, for three, am more interested than ever that the Commission be<br>RE-COMMISSIONED with truly non-partisan people this time,<br>rather than BUSH APPOINTEES.<br><br><br><br>
_________________________ . "...or am I a butterfly dreaming she's a woman?"
Loc: Hampstead, MD, USA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Exactly... it's wrapped in what you're willing to believe!<p><hr></blockquote><p>People like you are the reason I've not bothered finishing my analysis of the building collapses. Even if I do present you with compelling math, you won't believe it anyway because it doesn't fit what you're willing to believe. Never mind Bin Laden is an engineer and admitted he knew the buildings would at least partially collapse.<br><br>Perhaps if poly bugs me enough I'll finish it, as he's one of the few in here who could understand it anyway.<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
More hot air... eh Sarge?<br><br>You're not gonna back up your claims that I'm talking through my ass because I wouldn't understand your scientific facts.<br><br>You've already come close to admitting Building 7 is a puzzle that most likely can't be solved with your numbers, due to lack of information and everything was carted off and destroyed as quickly as possible. And that's the building my engineering knowledge and background in construction tell me is a huge flaw in the events of the day.<br><br>Sooo... I'm the reason you're not bothering to finish your analysis... give it up Sarge! You can't prove Building 7 wasn't 'pulled' (controlled demolition)... and you're too small to admit it.<br><br>I haven't mentioned or been holding my breath for your imaginary numbers Sarge... keep 'em to yourself and blame it on people like me... you're a joke! <br><br>
There is a major problem with defining exactly how the buildings came down on 9/11 using numbers. 9/11 is unfathomable by looking at just the numbers.<br><br>On 9/11 a group of neoconservatives led by George Bush rose from the political grave and conquered the world because of what happened on that day. What do I mean by that? Bush, after 8 months in office was already failing. He would have been voted out of office a few years later by a disgusted electorate. But then a miracle happened. Something that they actually wished for happened. A Pearl Harbor incident which galvanized the entire nation behind them so they could do what they really wanted to. Invade Iraq.<br><br>Because of one plus one equal two makes it obvious that these people had to be the cause of 9/11 we end up where we are today. People who have made up their minds and will only accept information which agrees with their facts. Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11. Just as no one lone assassin could kill JFK, no bunch of ill trained crazies with box cutters could create such mayhem. It has to be a bigger conspiracy. Your numbers that you collect on building design, fatigue of metal under high temperatures and the fuel capacity of jet liners will be ignored if they refute the conspiracy. Because a life changing event like 9/11 cannot be caused by a few box cutters and some guys who took a few flight lessons. You are labeled a joke if you do so. So if you are asking me, don't bother.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Two-Minute Warning. Remember the movie? And — as usual — the book was way better. A pretty believable plot. And probably even executable in the real world with the technology we have today. You can look at a premise like that and almost see why some of these "theories" about 9/11 are so seductive. You can almost accept some of those 1+1=2-ish equations. Except that so far, not one suspicious length of wire, not a single scrap of paper, not a dud fuse, and nary a pair of loose lips (neither conscience nor ego-driven) has surfaced to inarguably support any of the claims. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.<br><br>Oh sure, a lot of that physical evidence would have been as thoroughly pulverized as were all the desks and coffee makers in the Towers. And I suppose you could add an even more sinister layer by saying that all the hands-on players — the electricians, engineers, demo experts, etc. — were all systematically introduced to NJ landfills before they could start talking.<br><br>But so far, there is nothing but conjecture. On the other hand, there is imagination — by the barge-load. And that's a good thing. Something that I wish was more liberally employed in the Commission's investigation. But at least that document is based on palpable information and evidence that can be seen or held in your hand. <br><br>So I'm less of a patriot because I have a hard time buying some theories, don't fully accept the Commission Report, and haven't hi-jacked a network broadcast and read a list of 20 questions and demanded that the administration answer them on the spot. <br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>People who have made up their minds and will only accept information which agrees with their facts.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Which describes you and people who oppose looking at anything but the "official story" as well. And when overwhelmed with all the points that need to be cleared up from that day (and there are many at all 3 sites) they just start the tin foil hat dismissive remarks. Not much of an argument. <br><br>***Leoville
Which is how we end up "sez you", no, "sez you" mode.<br><br>You say the three sites have the answers. What are they? Do not give me YouTube video. Do not give me "he said pull building 7". Give me some evidence. But it cannot be a mass of little bits. Give me a theory I can believe without any conjecture or BS. You post a YouTube then agree that the very first point of the video is stupid. (About the basement starting to collapse.) That does not make for a credible argument. Give me an argument without any BS.<br><br>Give me some facts. For the lay person Popular Mechanics does a splendid job describing why virtually every part of the conspiracy theories are BS. But that was March of 2005. By now I am sure the conspiracy theorists have thought up more alternatives. Lets see them. Without any wrapping of hearsay or speculation.<br><br>Until then you can keep your fear and paranoia that our government is evil enough and smart enough to pull off 9/11. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
By sites I was referring to the WTC, Pentagon and the 8 mile wide debris field of flight 93. And yes I disagree with the significance of the slurry walls but, question why the buildings fell especially 7. If I just zealously agreed with all points made about 911 then that would be much less credible. I no longer believe that cell phone calls from the planes were impossible as was and is still stated by some. Maybe one day all the points will be satisfactorily dismissed. But, with the way things are going that won't be any day soon.<br><br>***Leoville
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.