9/11 Mysteries Movie

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:47 am

HMMMMMMMmmm :yh_think

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:26 pm

seen it. slick editing, ominous voice-overs, a well-mixed music track, and paranoia rather than skepticism, are no substitutes for the boring and dry facts of the case.

oh, they're a substitute for the gullible and credulous, to be sure. and those who like to be entertained. hey, i've found all of these conspiracy videos about 9/11 very entertaining, much like a good action-adventure movie is entertaining. but both genres are based on fiction rather than fact.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

but hey, if the boring, dry facts leave you yearning for more, here's an entertaining anti-conspiracy-theory 9/11 video.

Note: lots and lots of swearing (a clever way of avoiding liability).

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:22 pm

anastrophe;500111 wrote: ominous voice-overs,

Ominous voice-over?

Have you been watching the same film I did? The voice-over I remember seemed to belong to some tart that wished she had got the part in the latest porn movie....:wah:

Oh btw. The link doesn't work.... :p

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:53 pm

I thought it was the best presentation of the sort yet. It was very well organised, didn't jump around and left out any artsy fartsy stuff that takes away from credibility. I thought it was fairly convincing. Disturbingly so.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:44 am

Hugh Janus;500128 wrote: Ominous voice-over?

Have you been watching the same film I did? The voice-over I remember seemed to belong to some tart that wished she had got the part in the latest porn movie....:wah:

Oh btw. The link doesn't work.... :p

the link works fine.

-----correction. the link works fine. the embedded video isn't working for some reason. here's the direct link to the video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8523&hl=en

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:03 am

anastrophe;500111 wrote: i've found all of these conspiracy videos about 9/11 very entertaining, much like a good action-adventure movie is entertaining. but both genres are based on fiction rather than fact.NIST still hasn't published a report on WTC7? That'll be an interesting read when it happens, then.

You've transformed objectivity into religious belief. Start with "my government couldn't have been party to a crime this huge" and then work backward from the given fact to interpret what you can see and read.

While we're waiting for the 9/11 house of cards to collapse, here's a what-if for you. If a whistleblower publishes enough to demonstrate that the government brought down WTC7 as a deliberate pre-planned act, should Presidential pardons for the planners implicated be retrospectively overturned if any future President signs them? Try to avoid "I don't discuss hypotheticals" if you can, this is only a bulletin board, not an interview on CNN.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:50 am

Novelty;500424 wrote: you know better and post an ignorant video, which suggests we're all disillusioned...
Illusioned, surely?

I'd love to be disillusioned about it, honestly. I suspect we're more likely to find people publishing source documentation sooner rather than later, though, and blowing the entire set of events wide open. The question isn't really "did it happen", it's more "who authorized and implemented it".

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:18 am

I stood in front of my TV that day and watched the events of that day as many others did.

I have never agreed with the governments explaination of why the Towers crumbled to dust in seconds. You can watch it over and over again and know that something else was at play that day. You don't have to be a MIT grad to understand that. Will we ever know the full truth I hope so for this countries sake. :-1

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:44 am

Novelty;500424 wrote: Are you SERIOUS! :wah:

the real conspiracy is the official story, that video is pathetic claptrap produced for the brain dead,

i prefer to listen to the experts not this abhorrence...

fine. did you bother to read the NIST faq? or did you miss the intent of my having posted the video as its counterpoint?

i bet you even believe in magic bullets dont you?

the twin towers and building 7 were controlled demolitions, even the ppl who built the dam things agree, but you know better and post an ignorant video, which suggests we're all disillusioned...

"even the ppl[sic] who built the dam[sic] thing agree"

oh really? care to provide some citations? including their evidence that it was controlled demolition, their expertise to ascertain that, etc? or are we talking about a couple of firefighters stating in wonderment how it looked like a controlled demo? or a talking head on tv stating it looked like a controlled demo.

here's the rather funny thing that nobody ever seems to consider. you say it was a controlled demolition. lots of people say that. why do they say that? because it looks just like all the other films and videos of controlled demolitions that everybody has seen.

so, tell me. how many buildings have you ever seen collapse that were known to *not* be controlled demolitions? can you cite some video or film footage of a colossally large skyscraper having come down in other than a controlled demolition? if not, then how are we to make the distinction between how a non-controlled demolition building collapse is "supposed" to look?

never previously in history had two 110 story skyscrapers been hit by jetliners in a coordinated attack, and never previously in history had two 110 story skyscrapers collapsed. for that matter, never previously had any 110 story skyscraper been 'formally' brought down in a controlled demolition.

but we're supposed to take it on faith that - because it "looked like" other building demolitions, it means it _was_ a controlled demolition?

from fifty yards away a turkey sandwich looks the same to me as a turkey. therefore, a turkey sandwich is a turkey. QED.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:59 am

There was evidence in the video.

Is a transcript needed? I could look but it would be rather cumbersome. The best idea is generally to watch it and not block out things one doesn't want to hear.

There was footage of non demotion building collapses and there was footage of a pancake collapse and what the rubble would have looked like. It's in there you just have to be willing to see it.

And where did the core go? The explanations of the pancake collapse leave a core. The official story doesn't match reality.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:37 am

not sure what point you're making with the first video. which conspiracy angle are we supposed to gather from it?

second video. here's a question for you, novelty. how convinced are you of global warming as being caused by man, and being a dire threat to humanity?

yes, i know, seems like a non-sequitur. but i'd be curious what your reply will be.

third video. pretty funny! now *there's* an ominous voice for you - both of them! i like how Nova is supposedly a shill for the official theory. this sort of ties into my question above.

wow. this one's pretty funny. he's presented as "MIT Engineer/Research Scientist". of course, he states his qualifications as "I studied physics at MIT, I did electrical engineering for about eight years". well okey dokey! I studied physics at San Jose State University, and I've "done" electrical engineering for decades. therefore, I'm an "SJSU Engineer/Research Scientist"! cool! and i never even graduated! the other humorous little line is "one of the first things that i did was to speak to one of my patients". huh? engineers have patients? research scientists have patients? yuhhuh. i did a little poking around, here's what mr. king says about himself online:

Biographical Note:

PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeff King, a 60ish former electrical engineer - graduated from MIT, class of '74 with a combined Biology-EE major, worked for about eight years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering. At the moment, and for about the past 25 years, I have been working as a family physician, doing office-based primary care in rural central California.

who better than a (self-described, mind you) family physician to lecture on the physics of building collapse!

now, by the same token, neither do i have any qualifications to determine what caused the collapse. but you see, i don't misrepresent myself as having any qualifications to begin with. this guy is a fraud, presenting himself as an "MIT Engineer/Research Scientist". he's neither. he is - at best, if we take his word for it - a guy who tells kids to say "Ahh" and prescribes cephalexin to people - not a structural physics engineer.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:32 pm

i'm watching 9/11 mysteries AGAIN. so far, thirty minutes in, no footage of non-demo collapsing buildings. there's *still photos* of *already collapsed* non-demo buildings. that doesn't come close to what i was talking about.

this video is so full of bad and contradictory "science" it's laughable. they'll make one case for one scenario, then contradict it two minutes later. presenting faulty premises and then 'proving' them with faulty 'facts' that don't even relate to the premise.

yet people just gobble this up. no critical thinking applied at all. yet it's suggested that because i *don't* buy into the incredible conspiracy theories, that *i'm* the one not thinking critically. it's rather sad.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:46 pm

Novelty;500627 wrote:

more of the same. completely contradictory speculations presented that somehow we are to synthesize a non-contradictory conclusion from. no critical thinking applied. false/manufactured premises. the quite laughable 'squibs' theory regarding the overpressure dust plumes. suggestions that there were explosions in the base - which would then have caused the building to fall from the *base*, rather than pancake - but then, we're told it couldn't pancake on its own - so which is it? if the base had been compromised, the pancaking that occurred....wouldn't have occurred. the non-critically thought out "falling at freefall rates", which ignores that there was material above the pancake wave that continued to fall after the pancake reached ground level. the ridiculous suggestion that the core 'mysteriously' disappears, ignoring again the mass *above* the impact sites that was still attached to the core, and pulled it down with it. the repeated suggestion that the plane's jet fuel couldn't bring down the towers because it couldn't melt the steel, because it wasn't hot enough to melt the steel - but the only people suggesting steel was melted are the conspiracy theorists. they do a great job of setting up straw man arguments and knocking them down.

i can't even scratch the surface of the just plain old illogic that is being presented as science.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:02 pm

A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret.

:wah:

From an article by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:14 pm

quoting myself:

so, tell me. how many buildings have you ever seen collapse that were known to *not* be controlled demolitions? can you cite some video or film footage of a colossally large skyscraper having come down in other than a controlled demolition? if not, then how are we to make the distinction between how a non-controlled demolition building collapse is "supposed" to look?

never previously in history had two 110 story skyscrapers been hit by jetliners in a coordinated attack, and never previously in history had two 110 story skyscrapers collapsed. for that matter, never previously had any 110 story skyscraper been 'formally' brought down in a controlled demolition.

but we're supposed to take it on faith that - because it "looked like" other building demolitions, it means it _was_ a controlled demolition?

someone made the rather remarkable claim that there was indeed footage of what i describe above in the 911 mysteries drama. i watched the whole damned thing again. there is none. someone had the temerity to say "It's in there you just have to be willing to see it."

okay. you watch the damn thing again. make a note of the time counter where they show video or film footage of a skyscraper collapsing from other than a controlled demolition. then we'll see who is dwelling within reality.

but *i'm* the one ostensibly not thinking critically. it is a wonder!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:09 pm

Novelty;500690 wrote: Sorry for missing your intent..

The NIST Report doesn't explain WHY or HOW the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition...

so because there was no historical precedent, it means that it could not be for any reason other than controlled demolition? again, you have a perfect straw man. no 110 story skyscraper had ever before collapsed - for any reason. because smaller skyscrapers have been brought down in controlled demolitions, therefore, this unique building - with a construction type that is radically different from smaller skyscrapers - must have been brought down by a controlled demolition. it is not possible that the planes damaged the structures sufficiently on their own. why? because no 767's before had been crashed at full-throttle into 110 story skyscrapers, so therefore since it had not ever happened before, it could not happen then.

zero critical thinking.

This series of photographs show the North Tower at about 6, 8, and 10 seconds into its collapse. Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempts to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the collapses.

photos aren't working as of the time i'm replying.

why must there be an 'attempt to explain' how a billion pounds of concrete and steel would come down in an utterly catastrophic fashion? you don't think that the very way the building was constructed lent itself to collapsing straight down?

Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer on the team that designed the towers, wrote that he couldn't understand how the towers fell, like other civil engineers witnessed on websites and videos,

am i alone in seeing a signficant difference between

"couldn't understand how the towers fell"

and your previous statement that

"the twin towers and building 7 were controlled demolitions, even the ppl who built the dam things agree "

It belies belief that the World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, would design a building that would collapse due to fire, the funny thing is Minoru Yamasaki was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family.

uh. um. okay, i'll deal with the first half of that, and leave the - forgive me - tinfoil hat loony toons utterly goofy second half for later.

nobody designs a building that will not collapse due to fire. a building is designed and built to the best engineering knowledge of the day, and with the *expectation* that the mathematical theories behind the structure's design, and the physical testing of the component materials, will add up to a structure that is, for all intents and purposes, perfect. but as we know, there is no perfection. the Tacoma Narrows bridge was built to the best engineering knowledge of the day - completed july 1 1940 - and collapsed in a wind storm on nov 7 1940. it shouldn't have collapsed, but it did. it was built well after the golden gate bridge, which still stands today. so - that means therefore that the tacoma narrows bridge was actually a conspiracy and a controlled demolition?

A videotape of Osama bin Laden that was verified by the Pentagon as indicating that Bin Laden, who is a trained Civil Engineer, had not believed that the buildings would collapse completely, but would collapse only above the levels where the planes struck:

" We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for " (Quote bin Laden)

so many places to go with this. particularly when coupled with the comments about yamasaki and the saudis. first off, being a 'trained civil engineer' doesn't by even the furthest stretch mean bin laden could predict what would happen with any accuracy. furthermore, he talks about the 'gas from the plane would melt the iron structure' - but that's damned near half the premise of the conspiracy theories, that the jet fuel *could not* melt the iron - so is bin laden a misguided boob of a civil engineer for suggesting jet fuel would melt the steel? and if so, then how is his statement of what he thinks would happen suddenly a credible base for suggesting that it was *not* the jet fuel that weakened the steel? the mind reels. and we are now - when it's convenient of course - taking evidence supplied by the pentagon without any doubt of conspiracy? take it a step further - why would the pentagon certify the video of bin laden's comments as being genuine? i thought they're part of the conspiracy to cover up these damning details!

i still am baffled - much like mr. robertson i suppose - what connection we are to draw between the late dr. yamasaki, the saudis, and bin laden. is there some even longer-term conspiracy here? yamasaki designed the wtc 36 years previously, in 1965, specifically with the attack in mind?

The Firefighters explained hearing explosions, you can not ignore these gentleman..

i'm not. i'm ignoring the suggestion that what they heard were controlled-demolition charges, rather than a huge variety of things that could create 'explosive' sounds after the skyscrapers had been set afire then began collapsing.

Yes thats true, but the many reports and picture, seriously suggest explosions, you cant deny that, now we find human bones on the surrounding buildings, how is that possible?

what did you think when you first saw the towers collapse anastrophe?

what did i think? i saw a catastrophe. the towers were slammed into by two jetliners in a coordinated attack. they later fell. why it "has to have been" a controlled demolition boggles me. the evidence of what happened was right there. the fact that wtc 1 - which was the second one hit - fell before wtc 2 is just further evidence for the cause of the collapse. it's a huge no-brainer. the second plane hit much, much lower on the structure, which meant much much more mass was being 'asked' to be supported around the damaged area. yet for some reason this is held up as evidence in favor of controlled demolition. had it been controlled, then why hadn't "they" thrown the charges on wtc 2 first ?? that would have made it all seem that much more plausible! first tower hit, first to fall. second tower hit, second falls. if they were so dastardly in their cleverness to prewire the buildings with the several thousand pounds of thermate necessary, why'd they wait until after wtc 1 fell to blow wtc 2? it would have been more "believable" the other way around.

oh - and how is it possible human bones were found on surrounding buildings?? did we watch two different videos of the same thing? the one i saw showed a massive amount of debris being thrown outward from the collapsing structure, just as one would expect. the plume so to speak was gargantuan, and quite obviously (like, by looking) can be seen to billow out well beyond the tops of the surrounding buildings. why is this such a mystery?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:37 pm

Novelty;500732 wrote: Larry silverstein admitting demolishing WTC7, the term pull it, is a term used for demolishing...

this is where the conspiracy stuff makes me go cross-eyed. wtc7 is a completely different issue from the twin towers. these things are constantly mishmashed together. it is not by any means clearcut that what silverstein was referring to was doing a controlled demo of wtc7. he was talking about the firefighters. listening to it, it sounds to my ear that he's talking about pulling the firefighters out, not pulling the building. furthermore - again, these dastardly grand puppetmasters who brought down the towers in their controlled demolitions - why didn't they just demo wtc7 as wtc1 was coming down? neat and clean - 'demolished by the falling debris!' perfect cover for their deeds. why did they wait until nine hours later to bring it down? let's see....the poor sap entrusted to throwing the switches just did a lousy job. first he brought down the second-hit tower first, then the first tower hit second, and lastly it took nine hours before he could get the wiring fixed up right to blow wtc7!

It's quite an hot debate(forgive the pun) all i know is 11 of the the past 15 years have been recorded the hottest since records began including 2006, which is the warmest on record, all experts agree that the earths temperature is warming, this and natural castastrophy goes hand in hand, so yes it's a real threat to humanity.

:wah: naughty :rolleyes:

so why is it you're accepting the 'official story' about global warming, the one promulgated by the "scientific consensus"? to stay true to the ethos of these conspiracies, you should be listening to the small number of scientists who don't accept the 'consensus', the 'obvious' theory, the official line.

I have a degree in common sense.. and a strict discipline of following my instincts,

He's still allowed an opinion, you do with it what you want..

no disagreement there.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:00 pm

anastrophe;500688 wrote: quoting myself:

so, tell me. how many buildings have you ever seen collapse that were known to *not* be controlled demolitions? can you cite some video or film footage of a colossally large skyscraper having come down in other than a controlled demolition? if not, then how are we to make the distinction between how a non-controlled demolition building collapse is "supposed" to look?

never previously in history had two 110 story skyscrapers been hit by jetliners in a coordinated attack, and never previously in history had two 110 story skyscrapers collapsed. for that matter, never previously had any 110 story skyscraper been 'formally' brought down in a controlled demolition.

but we're supposed to take it on faith that - because it "looked like" other building demolitions, it means it _was_ a controlled demolition?

someone made the rather remarkable claim that there was indeed footage of what i describe above in the 911 mysteries drama. i watched the whole damned thing again. there is none. someone had the temerity to say "It's in there you just have to be willing to see it."

okay. you watch the damn thing again. make a note of the time counter where they show video or film footage of a skyscraper collapsing from other than a controlled demolition. then we'll see who is dwelling within reality.

but *i'm* the one ostensibly not thinking critically. it is a wonder!

A screen capture from the OP film at the moment when they say "This is a pancake collapse"

Attached files

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:48 pm

koan;500830 wrote: A screen capture from the OP film at the moment when they say "This is a pancake collapse"

so what? that's not even related to my inquiry. not even remotely.

footage of a skyscraper collapsing from other than a controlled demo. as i said before, "there's *still photos* of *already collapsed* non-demo buildings. that doesn't come close to what i was talking about.".

what part of that don't you understand? one still photo of an already collapsed building, that appears to have been *at best* seven, maybe ten stories tall. that's film footage of a skyscraper collapsing????

once more, with feeling, from my original query about this: "so, tell me. how many buildings have you ever seen collapse that were known to *not* be controlled demolitions? can you cite some video or film footage of a colossally large skyscraper having come down in other than a controlled demolition? if not, then how are we to make the distinction between how a non-controlled demolition building collapse is "supposed" to look?"

argh. plain language. easy to understand.

apparently not, for true believers.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:04 pm

Novelty;500834 wrote: It's you who believes the conspiracy

um, well okay then. that's the best response you can come up with to the questions i raised?

give me a plausible reason that they'd wait nine hours before demo'ing wtc7 if this was all a huge conspiracy. give me a plausible reason for why they didn't simply demo it while wtc 1 was coming down.

these are the hard questions for the conspiracy theorists to answer. they pose all these poorly constructed arguments - devoid of reasonable science - that we're supposed to just accept, simply because they're based on common distrust. well, i distrust the distrusters. prove to *me* your crazy theories.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:01 pm

Novelty;500925 wrote: anastrophe,

the material I've posted is there for ppl to see, rightly or wrongly i dont agree with the official story, you may disagree with me with insults, but i dont think you have anything to say apart from straw men with turkey sandwiches, so tell me

not sure where i've insulted you. the material *i've* posted is there for people to see too.

what was the light source at the impact points just before the planes hit the towers?

beats me.

do you believe that there was explosions in the towers?

i don't rely on belief in the matter. people heard bangs. they described them as explosions. when the towers were coming down it sounded like a long, drawn out 'explosion'. there's no actual evidence of explosions within the towers before the collapse or during the collapse. evidence, mind you, not speculation.

what were the objects underneath the plane wings?

um, huh? you mean the, you know, engines?

what caused the towers to disintegrate into dust?

a billion pounds of steel and concrete falling onto itself? bear in mind, it didn't all turn into 'dust'. there was lots and lots of dust, no question about it. thick piles of it. and also lots and lots of larger debris. like, multi-tons in weight.

who is responsible for the WTC attacks?

a dozen or so islamic fundamentalist zealots, apparently at the direction of osama bin laden, hijacked four jetliners, and used them as missiles to crash into wtc 1 and 2, the pentagon, and the fourth into a field after control was wrested from the hijackers. keep in mind that the wtc towers had been attacked in 1993 by islamic fundamentalist zealots. you already quoted bin laden stating that they planned the attack, and had thought it would do less damage than it did. so, because it succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, they were in cahoots with bush/cheney/rice/rove/rumsfeld/wolfowitz? the jets were merely an excuse to blow the buildings? why didn't they just try the same tactic they did in 1993, but with more powerful explosives? why do this elaborate planes-flying-into-buildings thing?

these are question i would like you to answer for me please..

there ya go. would love to get answers to *my* questions. hope that's not asking too much. hope you'll reciprocate my having answered yours.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:10 pm

Novelty;500953 wrote: You give me a reason why,

the obvious reason is because that's the time they decided to demolish it, maybe the explosive didn't work properly.. please tell me what you think..

um.

again, why not cover it up better if it was controlled? if they had apparently spent literally months wiring these buildings and setting charges, with extraordinary expertise and stealth, then how could that happen? and how could a crew have gotten back into the (burning and damaged) building to repair the explosive's wiring, with firefighters crawling all over the place, undetected? and considering how badly it was already damaged, why demolish it to begin with? it had been burning for nine hours - any contents of any value were long gone. furthermore, the 'shock and awe' that's supposed to have been the purpose of the attacks had already been accomplished. the firefighters had abandoned fighting the fires in the building because it was too dangerous.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:44 pm

Novelty;501274 wrote: It seems we are at opposite ends of the scale, anastrophe,

you who lives in the Persona, and I who lives in the Self,

pardon my french, but just wtf is that supposed to mean? when did this become freshmen psychology class? i thought we were talking about 911. silly me.

i will not be able to satisfy you, just like you will not satisfy me,

i made myself quite clear to you, but you do not understand,

oh, it's not an issue of understanding, not at all. it's an issue of belief. we're dealing with beliefs here. not science or facts or evidence. the conspiracy crowd latches on to all things improbable, and holds them up as 'evidence'. all actual evidence is held up as improbable, and consigned to being "the official story" that the evil [insert your favorite here] cabal has crafted to manipulate us. so it's a perfect little world - any actual, real, scientifically verified evidence must be the work of the conspiracy, and anyone who 'believes' the actual, real, scientifically verified evidence is merely buying into the deception. those who believe in that which is not provable, not verifiable, and not scientific, are the ones who are not being deceived - the more improbable the better, because since it can't be proved by this formula, the more "real" it is in this construct.

so someone like me, who simply asks for scientific evidence that can be verified, rather than wild speculations which can't - is merely being manipulated by The Man, a pawn, or worse a shill for their conspiracy...rather than being someone who simply asks for scientific evidence - that little thing that's held up as the sine qua non of rational thought.

oh well!

i am not here to investigate or prove anything, i'm here to tell you how i feel,

pretty much proves my points above. facts are irrelevant. feelings are all that matter. how sad.

your robust comments are only to compete,

and....competition in service to finding the truth is bad?

i know you believe foul play, but for you to accept this, is a burden,

in time you will see....

of course there was foul play. nearly three thousand americans were murdered by religious ****ing zealots who hate who we are and how we live.

it's exceptionally insulting to others to toss out your dimestore psychological analyses of them. what a convenient way to dismiss anything that doesn't support your world view. it's the perfect insulator, better than fiberglass.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:52 pm

Sic transit gloria mundi.