I dont want to play the intellectual holier than thou game. Thats thier deal, thats the deal of the jackasses who pretend they are superior because of thier logic and reason. I like to call them a little cock-weasel and shove my dirty socks in thier mouths it bings them right back to highschool when they got beat up by the JV football team for being D&Ders. At least it makes them more honest, hiding behind a wall of "logic and intellect" is just oral masterbation.

So. Just because someone brings certain subjects into question they are being "high and mighty"?

I am having a hard time understanding why you are so hostile about this subject. If you think it is a ridiculous argument why is it so hard for you to just simply say, "Ridiculous!", and move on to another subject. Belittling the author because of an argument they have forwarded in no way makes thier argument invalid. It just makes you out to be hostile.

No, not the act itself. But the reasoning for the act. I doubt he really cares about who did it unless it happens to be someone the red states love, in which case he can bask in how morally superior he is to all us redneck hillbillies who used to beat him up in highschool.

Steel melts at 1370 Celsius. Jet Fuel burns at 550 Celsius. Logically you can deduce that the steel should withstand the burning jet fuel. What that argument does not take into consideration is IMPACT, STRESS, and THE WIEGHT OF SEVERAL STORIES OF STEEL AND CONCRETE. With those additional factors it makes sense that two jet airliners would indeed bring them down.

Hell, a truckload of fert brought down a building and that had NOTHING to do with burning jet fuel nor melting steel.

Oh. Steel, fireproofed or not, loses 50% of its strength at exactly 593 Celsius.

I think it's the attitude more than the facts that puts us off. That and we're smart enough to see there's an underlying motivation behind posting the article in the first place. I don't understand why people are faulted for being blatant and insultingly obvious in their opinions, while other people are allowed to be shady and subversively insulting and that's okay.

because someone questions the government, they are personally attacking you?

you may believe it's bullshit, but they have put a lot of effort in proving their idea...equations, comparisons, examples and even footage and pictures of the actual disaster that lend support to their theory...timed detonations or not, not one of you have offered any rational manner of disproving their theory...you have not tried to point out the fallacy of their methods used in concluding the theory, you haven't disproven the credibility of those who've proven scientific documentation in their belief, you haven't even offered anything to support your vehmenance against the theory...only sarcasm and reducing everyone to a them versus bush...bashfest?

one can be patriotic and not support bush, he's not America, only the person draggin it down to the level of the rest of the world...he doesn't need to assist in bombing to do that, all he has to do is open his mouth, again, that's not blaming him for the destruction...just agreeing with what more and more people are coming to realize about him...he's not a very good president...but again;

I do not believe that's a reason to believe he had anything to do with this, except receiving a report and filing it away...you're right, some are trying to use this theory against him, but that's not a reason shoot everyone who does agree that a plan b could have been planned by those who were responsible for bringing down; the two towers and eight other buildings with two planes?

The thing with you, Jordyn, is that I truly believe that you're wanting to gather facts, because you respect the truth. And something in this evidence has triggered you to question. And I admire that, despite the fact that I disagree with you. My issue is with those that hide behind unproven facts and theories in attempt to foist their personal political views on other people, then insinuate that these people are stupid or ignorant for not buying into the whole thing.

you make excellent points and i can see why it is unbelievable, those who support the theory of only the planes do make as many interesting points supporting their theory too...and make as much sense, this is just a bit more...tantalizing.

my politics are simple, i don't like bush or the state of america currently, but for me, politics are irrelevant in this conversation...bush doesn't apply.


it wouldn't be worth discussing if everyone agreed with me...some are just more pleasant when pointing that out.

And its our right to call them on their bullshit. What is your fucking point?

you've presented no proof to support your claim it's bullshit...only rudely sarcastic personal opinion.

And common sense.

So your common sense and snazzy sarchasm automatically trumps the scientific method and an essay that I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read?
The best way to call me on this would be to review the facts and give well thought out and informed reasons why it is bullshit.

Then what about WTC 7? WTC 7 was not struck by a plane and damage from falling debris should have resulted in only a partial collapse at the very most.

My point dear sir is that you can call 'IT" bullshit without resorting to insulting rhetoric which targets the specific person who forwarded the argument. I apologize if you were to dense to see that


See--- I did not need to add the direct insult at the end. It has no purpose except to troll you into responding in kind.

What about WTC 7?? It fell due to stresses put upon it which were absolutely abnormal. The siesmic shock from the buildings falling had people falling down blocks away.

Oh yeah? Well you're a faggot! PWNED!