To be curious is the beginning of the scientific method.

Q: Why did fires burn for 8 weeks? That doesn't usually happen..
A: Who knows!? Are you saying it was thermite or something? You're an idiot. Shut up.

Q: Molten steel? Fuck that. What about ANY molten metal!? What's that doing there? Pouring out of windows? From a kerosene fire?
A: Well you saw it, so I guess it's normal. Are you an expert metallurgist now?

Q: Why have we never seen photos of the plane flying into the Pentagon? My local 7/11 has better camera surveillance than that!
A: So are you saying it was a missile!? You're an idiot. So what happened to all those people!

Q: Why did buildings suddenly fall due to fire? That never happened to any other buildings in history? And 3 of them?
A: So what are you saying? Obvously it fell from the fires. Are you saying a little green man did it? Shut up, idiot.

Q: WT7 wasn't even hit by a plane and it fell -just like the others. Why?
A: Don't you know anything? Have you even READ the NIST report!? Come back when you have an engineering degree and maybe we'll talk, idiot.

Q: Where was NORAD that day? How come jets weren't scrambled from a nearby base?
A: Oh, so now you're an expert on the military! Fucking nut bag....

Q: Why do you believe an administration that has been proven to gave lied about just about everything related to foreign policy, torture, the war vs. Iraq, Blackwater, etc.?
A: Well, even a stopped watch is right twice a day, I guess.

Does this sound like curiosity to you? Or does it sound like the graveyard where curious minds go?

Why did fires burn for eight weeks? Because they had the fuel to do so - the contents of huge office buildings.

Why have we never seen photos of the plane flying into the Pentagon? Because there are none. Your local 7/11 wouldn't have had any better photograph or video recording of that event.

Why did buildings suddenly fall due to fire? They didn't. The onset of the progressive collapses in all three was a gradual process.

WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane and it fell - just like the others. Why? Because it was hit by debris from WTC1 which started several fires. Those fires burned unchecked for seven hours in the lower floors. Eventually a section of the building built to accomodate both an electrical substation and WTC ramp access already on the site failed, kicking off the collapse.

Where was NORAD that day? Trying its damnedest to find out where problems were and get to them. The actual tapes of their efforts are in the public domain.

Why do you believe an administation, etc.? Because they aren't the only ones we get this information from.

You have tailored your answers to fit retroactively. A logical error is in their somewhere but I am unsure as to the correct terminology for it.

But clearly your arguments are circular. Turtles on turtles as my old Anthro prof used to say.

And misrepresenting my positions and stated facts so blatantly doesn't speak well for your claim on the scientific method.

Not when you cite the types of things in the OP that cause your personal incredulity to speak up.

Incredulity is the quality of being incredulous. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incredulous">Merriam Webster defines incredulous as:


The term admit in the context given above is generally used to denote when someone is wrong but refuses to acknowledge it.

However, there is an "or" in the definition above.

The term accept is far more ambiguous than admit. Surely you acknowledge that simply accepting things that we are told by others is not always a good thing.

To get a further understanding of the term, I believe it would be wise to post the definition of credulous. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credulous">Merriam Webster's definition of the term:


So yes, it's not good to not 'admit' when one is wrong, but I think you would agree that it's not good to believe people based on 'slight or uncertain evidence' as well.

If you aren't able to deal with the details, why bother starting the conversation?
(or were you just posting a baseless rant?)

All of your questions have answers that don't involve any conspiracy, so you intentionally ignore them and then disingenuously try to claim that "All your 'answers' simply amount to 'it must be so because alternatives are unthinkable'". How do you reconcile your alleged "curiosity" with your willful ignorance? Richard Feynman once said that science is the way we avoid fooling ourselves. You instead prefer the anti-scientific method, apparently because you have the opposite purpose.

1. Do you people actually believe the contents to the towers offices were what was on fire?
First of all one worker on the site famously said the biggest item he saw from the wreckage was a telephone key pad. Most of the contents were pulverized lying
in a pile. Where is the oxygen to feed this fire of office contents. The building was full of asbestos and other fire retardant articles. Most of the structural steel had fireproofing on it.
Your arguments about the fire being an inferno that could get hot enough to weaken steel when the buildings were still standing depended on your claim of all the oxygen from the wind to fuel the fires.
Now the bottom of a pile containing little to no oxygen is perfectly capable of sustaining a weeks long fire hot enough to melt workers boots?
2. There are no photos of the planes hitting the pentagon???
Tell that to the workers of the hilton who had the hotel security tapes of the crash confiscated by the FBI moments after the crash as they were watching them.
3.Without any of the bucking and gradual sagging normally seen in such an event. It also looks just like the recent top down demolition video of the chinese building right down to the side expulsion of girders.
4.ok sure, I still think the real reason for seven coming down was the SEC evidence from investigations on ENRON and others on wall street that was housed there.
5.The actual redacted transcribed tapes you mean. How come you guys never mention that detail??

if you dumped all the combustibles from the TC in a six story pit and set it on fire, just how long do you think it would burn?

Why do you think it burned so long? It can't be thermate so what else?

You mean all the asbestos and fireproofed steel that was mixed into your pile of pulverised concrete none of which are very combustable?
Plus this fire was burning from the bottom of the pile up not the top down. where is the oxygen needed to fuel the fires that burned for weeks?

what are office buildings stuffed with? Think for a second - it will come to you. Think about why they need sprinkler systems.

If not then google fuel loading - it will make sense then.

As for the air, think again. What possible source of air ran deep under the WTC? And don't you think that there were large pockets in the pile - there were plenty of large chunks of debris and steel columns after all.

They use bellows to achieve that in foundries. Were there bellows under the towers??
And office fires are considered a low burning fire that do not achieve much intensity. Hence the black smoke in the towers firefighters said were indicative of anything but a raging inferno.
You oct friends claimed it was all the oxygen from the wind that helped super heat what would normally have been a normal low intensity office fire.
So now you claim stagnant small pockets of oxygen under the rubble are suffecient too sustain a weeks long fire?????????
Come on Hack!

You need to educate yourself on how hot the fires were - they were definitely not weak. Here is an excellent MIT paper on the subject. Do you know more than a MIT professor? Let me guess - he is in on it.


http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

The smoke was black because of what was being burned - care to guess what color smoke oil based products like plastic and synthetic materials produce. Those smoke plumes were so large they could be seen from space - they represented tons of solid particulates being lifted miles into the sky. So tell where all that energy came from if not fires? Only a truther could look at a massive smoke plume visible for miles around and say "what a weak fire."

Give the source of air some more thought - perhaps now is the time to actually study how the WTC were constructed and how the site was developed.

and fuel source. He has many nifty graphics showing this. After the initial burnoff of fuel explain what was left to burn other than the contents of an office.
Thereby making it an average office fire.

A fire that approached temperatures of 1000 C. It is clear you did not understand what you read. Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature?

burned off. Jeeesh.Your MIT guy says that very clearly.

Again - you need to understand the difference between heat and temperature.

And do you realize how much energy a gigawatt is? That's about one sixth the energy a typical nuclear power plant produces in a year. Weak fires my ass.

Besides in the south tower the right engine and wing went out the side of the building and much of the fuel went out as well with the fireball exploding outside the building not inside.
At best you can say the south tower steel was exposed to half the gigawatt energy the north tower was.
Plus that tower went down faster. HMMM exposed to a less intense internal explosion yet went down faster. Nice try MIT.

RIGHT?
So come on and show me where he did.

In other words yes you do think you are smarter than an MIT professor. Care to elaborate on your credentials?

To show me where Mr. MIT thought of the obvious differences between the two tower fires in his very scientific sounding paper.
Now of course he will not have to actually answer because he has made the argument about my intelligence versus his not about the fallacy in Mr. MITs paper.

can immediately spot the error in your analysis and see that no such error exists in the paper in question.

be specific.

You official story people.

But it would be nice if the people who keep criticizing it here would actually read the damn thing first.

response.

It's unusual for CTers to have actually read the NIST reports. Understanding them, though, is a whole other matter.

Which is why you use it to make fireplace tools.

You forgot the left engine and wing. That was inside the building.

And everything you mention was dealt with in the NIST report on the towers.

Look if you have half the plane hitting inside the south tower it has half the gigawatt power. Yet it collapsed faster. Mr. Mit fails to account for this.
Furthermore according to the NIST report there were MORE core columns taken out of the south tower by half the plane ,and it was not even coming in aimed at the core but the side of the south tower.
Thats the wonder of using computer simulations to get a preordained conclusion. Little things like that.
Thats how many columns the computer said would of had to have been taken out to get the south tower collapse in the time it collapsed to fit the NIST model.
Beyond that there is no actual evidence of how many core columns were actually taken out or damaged severely.

I believe you're oversimplified the NIST analysis. I would encourage you to read it yourself instead of allowing 9/11 conspiracy theorists to tell you what it says.

Your fireplace tools have wooden handles because that's what you bought. However, plenty exist without wooden handles.

And anything that can pull this trick off isn't all that great a conductor of heat energy:

Now thats science!
Hold onto your fireplace tool without the wooden handle while its in the fire for a few minutes then report back.
Thats science too.
And i didn't even have to go to MIT!

Most notably, the type and severity of damage, the damage being lower in the building, etc.

Science is taking all the factors into account, not cherrypicking one.

Steel conducts heat. But not that well, as the glowing middle of that piece of steel demonstrates. All the rest of that steel is plenty hot, but only the middle is glowing. Any material that can do that isn't all that great a conductor of heat. And because steel can do that, they fireproof it.

That's science as well.

Its how the building was built. And there had to have been fewer core columns damaged since the plane hit the side away from the core.
Also half the plane came out the side. Yet NIST has more core columns taken out in its model. NOW thats science!

You don't understand the report and you're quite content to simply mangle it for your own amusement.

Very good! You can be as silly as you want to be.

Now thats science the official story way!

I've done my best to explain what's happening, but you have proven that you will mangle it and believe what you like. I have no power to change your willingness to misunderstand.

Why does playing a silly game with an event that killed thousands of people make you happy? This is a question you need to answer for yourself.

Just a guess. And you've demonstrated it over and over. Like BuddyBoy.

so how does the truth community explain the fires?

if you have no plausible alternative. Be honest - you have no clue what caused those fires.

Doesn't it give you pause that fire fighters and fire engineers aren't as mystified as you seem to be? They seemed to think that there was nothing unusual in what happened - have you considered that perhaps the issue here is your lack of knowledge?

To quote NIST
"Nearly all indoor large fires including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers produce large quantities
of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because at the locations where the actual burning is taking place the oxygen is
severely depleted and the compustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water."
The temps may have been very hot at the time of crash as the fuel burned as MIT guy says but soon settled into the oxygen depleted fire of" nearly all indoor large fires". Since Nists contention is the sustained overheated temperatures caused structural failure in addition to the damage done by the planes. I would be concerned If I were you by this admission by NIST of lower temps from the tower fires than would be needed to produce this effect. Be honest you really have not read the NIST report very well have you?
And because you think firefighters and officials were not concerned by the fires under the rubble does not make them unworthy of investigation and explaination.

you take a NIST quote from a FAQ that is explaining why extremely hot fires can produce thick black smoke and turn it completely around. Very well done!:eyes:

It is not even from the NIST report - did you think my Google was broken?

Once again temperature =/= heat.

They weren't concerned because they knew what was causing them. Unless you have an actual quote to the contrary?

I would think your interest in reading it would extend to their explanations of there results.
After all you admonish all the truthers to read everything NIST says because all will be explained.
NOW its cherry picking to quote their explanation?

Twisting out of context? Is that Chubby checkers in a mosh pit?

Just because you see it doesn't mean it's there.

Jeesh.

is the rest of the NIST statement accurate or just the piece you cherry picked?

or cherry picking.
But cherry picking and quote mining always involve quoting.

Just because you quote someone does not mean you have correctly portrayed their position on a subject, much less the nuances of that position.

own position. Its the kind of thing you guys are endlessly trying to find to convince everyone truther science is not to be trusted,
If it was one of you, you would have been crowing posts ago about how stuff like this proves truthers are all lunatics.

No, the truly curious will actually try to figure out the answers to their questions.

This sounds like just another silly truther looking for answers in all the wrong places.

the play book. Predictable, familiar, seemingly designed for a purpose consistent only with those for whom the OCT isn't
dumb enough.

Dude, are you curious as to whether 2+2=5?

reasonable answers over the past seven years. You just don't choose to accept them, or fail to comprehend them. Either way. you scientific method has hit a dead end.

so look up my answer if you want.

a single one of my posts.

You apparently have absolutely nothing new to offer here. In fact, the pattern of your posts are showing you to be quite the substance-less board disrupter.

I have noticed a tendency of your posts to fill me sails with hot air that gets me ship nowhere.
Well if its a fight you be spoiling for i will run ya thru with my scabard.

Yourself...buddyboy. FAR less interested in discourse. More along the lines of petgoat and wildbill. Far lest interesting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yet, you're here anyway.

Prepare to see alot more "new" Truthers.

September 11 is coming. And lots of us haven't forgotten.

your ranks are dwindling, your "movement" is moribund and people are getting disgusted when "truthers" disrupt political events.

with all the same old claims recycled and rehashed.

ONLY interested in exposing the truth about 9/11. We won't quit and there's more of us being born every day. You should join us,
not try to have us gagged.

doesn't buy your bullshit.

Most of us know the truth anyhow.

Your "truth movement" is on the ropes. It mostly consists of rude idiots who go around disrupting political events and alienating nearly everyone in the crowd in the same manner you've alienated just about everyone here.

Your posts are hilarious.

in more ways than one.

and fire trucks are more evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. That's gotta hurt, so you need to bury it.

Toasted cars?

I love the way you insinuate a position I've never taken. Amateur hour, dude.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

why do you think I'd be addressing it here?

:rofl: nice try

You and BuddyBoy?

:hi:

it's better than being infamous for putting out goofy conspiracy theories, dude.

:rofl:

you're also a game player...noted.

And so quickly. Must be getting sloppy. :wow:

we're talking in "truther code". Let me get my translation guide.

Okay. The cat is out of the bag. Repeat. The cat is out of the bag. Batten down the hatches. Mayday, mayday. Project "let's see if people will buy truther bullshit" is underway. Take no prisoners. Rendezvous at Mom's basement. Avoid radio contact. Lives are in danger. I say again. Lives are in danger. Trust no one. That is all.

Must......... Deflect......... Destroy........ Detonate........ :nuke:

But don't get too big of a head, because I have a feeling that it didn't take you days and days to learn the secret of the
Secret Dudecoder ring.

and pretend you're doing important work. let me think. How about:




Have you ever thought of making yourselves, well, less of a target?

it's a no brainer. :freak:

so you admit you're a "no-planer". After all, "no-planes" = "no brains"

not a death ray reference!?! Shit this forum would make a great drinking game. :beer:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Have you ever thought of getting matching outfits? I even found a special phone you can use to receive calls for help, dude.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aLGof-xkxxY/ShCgdxfh-JI/AAAAAAAAABY/QRFlp-loI1Q/s320/Goofy+-+Front.jpg

:wow:

you.

9-11 hijacker.

I found a picture of you and BuddyBoy, but I don't know who the third person in the picture is.

DUDES!! Get a life!!

you keep posting, yet you think WE need to get lives?

:think:

she doesn't pay very well, though....

Any two-bit high-school nerd could do better. Depending on how one defines "better".

at the counter, dude. Loved the nametag, but where's your hair restraint?

The tests are back. Dudester.

I'm pretty sure it was yours informing you that he found your head, dude.

wrong cubicle.

Well, that's a BIG step up from the counter for you. Congratulations!

Tired of trying to one-up me yet?

"I know you are, but what am I?".

Looks just like the person who hired me to "interact" with you. Something about underdeveloped social skills or something.

I have never alerted on a post on DU regarding content.

Correction. I did alert on an offensive picture plaguepuppy posted once. But that was above the pale.

What must little minds think around here? Do they think this forum is not read by people of intelligence?

The number of people seeking answers, in case you missed it, outweighs the same old name of dungeon groaners and moaners who use the same old tired fallacies over and over again, hoping curious people tire of discourse.

Fail that one.

I haven't heard what the excuse for that is. It's just such a stickler, ya know?

highly protected airspace?

Dude.

Have you ever noticed that the Pentagon is about a mile away from National Airport and flights go right over it all the time? More importantly, do you know what an ADIZ is?

You should also learn the difference between fighters that are "on alert" and those that are merely "combat ready".

and answer the question -- if you can -- rather than deflect and play the kind of games already documented in this forum.

If you have something to say, please say it. It's not a complex question.

just from the questions you've asked.

First of all, I'd still like to know what "highly-protected airspace" you're talking about.

Secondly, on 9/11, there were 14 ANG bases that performed the air sovereignty mission for the US, so those are the only bases that had fighters "on alert". The rest would have had fighters on a lower readiness status known as "combat-ready", meaning they can be scrambled less quickly as they must first be armed, fueled and pilots have to be mustered from wherever they are. That's why fighters were scrambled from Langley and Otis as opposed to Andrews.

In order to understand the concept of an ADIZ, it's important to understand the posture of NORAD on 9/11. Attacks were presumed to be coming from offshore, not from a domestic flight. Accordingly, when fighters are scrambled, they initially vectored to an ADIZ or Air Defense Identification Zone. Again, since these ADIZ's are over water, it contributed to the inability to intercept the hijacked airliners.

If you'd bother to educate youself, you wouldn't ask such uninformed and presumptuous questions.

thank you for your time. :puke:

insinuations, yet haven't bothered to look for publicly available information to answer their questions. Otherwise, you wouldn't be demanding to know why the airliners were not intercepted as if they could have been, but people chose not to do so.

For whatever it's worth, I patiently tried to steer you towards resources where you could educate yourself, but you gave me that impatient. snarky "truther", "No, explain it to me right now", bullshit. It's been nearly eight years, dude. Why don't you know the basics?

"but you gave me that impatient. snarky "truther".... "No, explain it to me right now", bullshit." :wtf: :wtf:


PERHAPS WE HAVEN'T MET. I AIN'T NOBODY'S GENERIC ANYTHING, DUDE. :evilfrown: Don't EVEN try that generic, YOU"RE DOING WHAT THEY ALL DO fucking shit with me.


You guys go ahead and keep wanking each other off and making your assumptions and keeping interested people out of potentially informative discussions because of all your fucking mindgames. Including the bogus use of "Dude," dude. :thumbsdown:

Enjoy your petty battles, no one else does.

FWIW, I have educated myself to a degree possible while staying out of DU's 9/11 viper pit and I have never been convinced that any of those planes could get through without LIHOP. Why should we believe that? Everything else is gravy.

So congratulations on your sanctimonious, superior twittery. Good bye.

this is the only place you could educate yourself? Really?

I'm still waiting to find out how you knew that they travelled through "highly protected airspace unchallenged". Not only did you get that wrong, it's flat-out "truther" language, dude. Sounds like a "sinister insinuation" to me. You didn't even know what fighters WERE scrambled and interception attempted, but they weren't in time.

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? How about the NIST Reports/ The BPAT's?

:puke: might backfire, if that's what you're up to.

are you serious?

Their word.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

away from your plotted air plan toward the White House. Two things will be accomplished.
You will find the highly protected airspace and maybe we will be rid of your goofiness for a few days while you explain to the nice men in the suits what you were doing.

WH airspace on 9/11?

After that and Oklahoma city.

First off The White House WAS protected airspace at the time of that incident. Unfortunately the way you have worded your post you make it seem as if the airspace over The White House was restricted only afterward.

The second thing is that you seem to be conflating the airspace over The White House with that over the Pentagon.

These are in fact two separate locations.

Furthermore you seem to be intentionally missing the point altogether but that is par for the course so I expected it.

I just offered an innocent suggestion as to how he might find out exactly where it is.
yes I knew the airspace over the White house was protected before the Clinton incident.
I believe if a plane goes wandering off course transponderless or incommunicado over Washington it should be cause for attention paid to it.
Don't you?

Seconds might be the most convenient unit to use, if you need one.

or NOT! And they had no way to figure out what was going on with this plane because after all no other jets were highjacked that day!

have turned off their transponders are tracked. Can you explain precisely what the mechanism is?

In an attempt to confuse air traffic control apon whom their lives depend! JEEESH!

you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about...seriously.

That is a complete misrepresentation of both your post and SD's and we all know it.

SD asked what "highly-protected airspace" was being refereed to by the person he was responding to as having been traversed on 9-11 by one or more of the hijacked jets, NOT what part of DC is restricted airspace.
Your so called 'innocent suggestion' does nothing to answer that question. It was strictly disruptive, unless you are claiming that one of the flights entered whitehouse airspace.

"I believe if a plane goes wandering off course transponderless or incommunicado over Washington it should be cause for attention paid to it.
Don't you?"
Non-sequitor. You can make all the arguments you want about what should be cause for 'attention' but it does not change the facts of wither a specific aircraft could be intercepted. The two are entirely different.

and were the orders the same???????
Does that not imply 1. They knew the plane was off course and headed towards the white house?
2. There were orders about this event??

playing out, UA 93 had already crashed, right?

but it certainly was not the Pentagon as the airport approach for numerous flights goes right over it and I am not aware of any airliners that violated WH airspace on 9/11. If any "truther" wants to contend differently, you're welcome to provide actual evidence of it.

:wtf:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

which is why many people don't think you're remotely credible on the subject.

You over-estimate WHAT you know.

which is why many people think you're full of bull feathers... dude.

Have you actually read the reports?

Are you trying to change the subject?

believe you. If you had read the reports, you wouldn't ask some of the questions you and make some of the goofy statements you do.

P.S. How is Burt?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then again, that's totally irrelevant to the questions you asked and the answers you received.
I can't think of a good reason why you prefer to change the subject.

with rude, hamhanded arrogance and have nothing of substance to offer but badger me and cause more trouble.

What a surprise.
:sarcasm:

do you really deny that you're a "truther"?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just a guess.

I was primarily commenting on the fact that you changed the subject from the topic under discussion to your criticism of the personalities trying to have a fruitful discussion with you.
Now, back to the topic.

discussion over

stop being belligerent.

You received answers, then totally changed the subject to your criticism of the people answering you.
I think it's possible that "self-fulfilling prophecy" is an apt phrase for your interactions here.

discussion over.

and leave the topic at hand behind you. Is that what you meant?

I won't

Anyone who can disagree without being an asshole knows how to have a discussion.

Trying to convince someone to remain on topic instead of encouraging unproductive peckfests is not a game.
In some cases though, it's a goddamn fool's errand.

I don't feel obligated to respond to belligerence or be attacked and then have someone pretend they were "disagreeing" and expect a discussion to continue.

That can't be so hard for you to grasp. Your machinations don't change the fact.

Is there any evidence in support of that statement of yours?

I don't feel obligated to respond to belligerence or be attacked and then have someone pretend they were "disagreeing" and expect a discussion to continue.

Unsubstantiated baloney about 9/11 is always great to see posted at DU.

Unsubstantiated belligerence is always a deterrent to discussion on DU. :evilfrown:

when challenged for proof of your goofy claims, you can just whine your opponent was "belligerent".

of someone else. You stepped in. You set the tone. Don't pass it off on anyone else.

You're using the tactic of those who act belligerent and then pretend they were "discussing" and accuse others of "whining" (aka bullying).

It's just a racket to "challenge" others and shout them down and pretend to be self righteous about it.

But, wanting intelligent discourse, I usually give these fellas a try every so often, in the event they've straightened themselves out.

(snark, yeah, I'm kidding)

accuse the other side of "belligerence", all the while pretending none emanates from "truthers". Maybe if you guys would try to have a respectful debate, you might be surprised with the resulting tone.

"Maybe if you guys would try to have a respectful debate, you might be surprised with the resulting tone."

Yeah, we all know what that's like from you... FAIL!

Seriously, maybe if you try to meet the "debunkers" halfway, you'd be surprised, despite the differences in opinions. Personally, I'm tired of being accused of supporting Bush. Frankly, I don't think you have any idea how you come off, but your combativeness triggers the same from "our side". I happen to think that, if you strip away the "9/11 was an inside job!" shrieking. there are many areas of agreement.

We pause now for station identification while SDuderstadt is getting his ass kicked. And now... it's time for his amnesia!

:popcorn:

didn't get your ass kicked on the facts. I can give you plenty of examples where you have. Whether it's 911 or the JFK assassination, you seem to think CT twaddle is actual fact. In fact the absolute funniest example is when you absolutely false claims about Johnny Brewer and Oswald's arrest and I produced Brewer's affidavit which exposed your false claim.

The expression ''like shooting fish in a barral'' comes to mind.

P.S. Say hi to Burt for me!

didn't get your ass kicked on the facts. I can give you plenty of examples where you have. Whether it's 911 or the JFK assassination, you seem to think CT twaddle is actual fact. In fact the absolute funniest example is when you absolutely false claims about Johnny Brewer and Oswald's arrest and I produced Brewer's affidavit which exposed your false claim.

The expression ''like shooting fish in a barral'' comes to mind.

P.S. Say hi to Burt for me!

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dude!

I'd love for you to post an objective analysis of why you believe only certain investigators of the JFK assassination that didn't support a single bullet theory. Coupled with this fallacy, I'd love to have you objectively lay out why you are in lock step with the 911 Commission's report that has clearly omitted and distorted significant testimony and left out more facts than all those volumes of the Warren Commission.

makes actual grammatical sense?

As for your second ''challenge'', please demonstrate how I am ''in lockstep'' with the 911 CR. BTW, your ''loaded'' demands assume things which haven't been remotely proven. BTW, in another few weeks, it'll have been 8 years since the attacks. Are you guys close to solving the case? What are you waiting for?

My regards to Burt!

What highly protected airspace are you referring to? Which flight went though it?

he/she seems the sensitive type.

Bonobo "Q: Why did fires burn for 8 weeks? That doesn't usually happen.."

What do you mean by that usually doesn't happen? Underground fires can burn for years, even decades, all they need is a fuel and a source of oxegon. The contents of the world trade center had plenty of fuel and the subway systems provided a decent path for air flow, so it seems the requisite materials to sustain a fire were available. What evidence is there that the fires should not have burned for eight weeks?

Look if this were 2 days after September 11th you might have a good point. But it isn't. There has been plenty of time for you to read up and find that there are plenty of reasonable answers to those questions that are not straw man constructions.
Please feel free to argue against any of those answers. Feel free to explore the topic more.
But for fucks sake drop the bullshit.

"Q: Where was NORAD that day? How come jets weren't scrambled from a nearby base?
A: Oh, so now you're an expert on the military! Fucking nut bag...."

Really? Seriously?
The question isn't even factually accurate. Never mind the straw man you constructed for an answer.

Paranoid is counterproductive.