<p>You call a link to an article without any of the actual footage 'GOOD EVIDENCE'? That was just an article. It didn't even have any video or good pictures attached to it. </p>
<p>You've got to be kidding.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I have provided you with plenty of actual science and math that illustrates the impossibility of the towers freefalling without the help of explosives. I also sent you the pix of the 'fake' bin Laden which is just so ridiculously obvious, because it appeared on the cover of Newsweek, a mainstream mag readily available anywhere. (You probably have a copy of that issue lying around at home someplace. I do.) Did you take the time to even look at it? Now, tell me: who decided to pass that off as bin Laden, and why??? (or, are you going to argue that he had a nose job and restructured his cheeks while living in his cave?)</p>
<p>I have also repeatedly stated that the freefall issue is the main issue. Everything else is secondary, including WHO did it. Hell, the terrorists could have planted the explosives! It doesn't necessarily mean the US govt did it.</p>
<p>Yet you keep insisting on asking questions as to the 'why' and the 'who.'</p>
<p>Good forensics dictates that you first examine the EVIDENCE.</p>
<p>We all have the evidence on our very own tapes we recorded off the tv.</p>
<p>You say I am being illogical and refusing to look at the evidence???</p>
<p>Now this is getting really hilarious. Am I not the one who has asked from the beginning for people to please do their best to poke holes in the conspiracy theorists' allegations? Did I not say that I am feeling very rattled and do NOT want to believe what they are saying?</p>
<p>Here, on a college forum, no one has been able to tackle the serious quesions. The best they can do is regurgitate the mainstream bs that they've been fed.</p>
<p>No one has offered an explanation of freefall without explosives. I have repeatedly tried to stick to the main issues without getting into politics or name-calling. Review my posts. Just who was calling whom names? Just who kept trying to get back on track to the EVIDENCE?</p>
<p>You have to understand that I didn't just post this when I had barely begun to research it. Don't you think I've already read most of the mainstream rebuttals? Don't you think I've already seen the NIST, the Popular Science rebuttals?</p>
<p>What you don't realize is that I have ALSO already seen the rebuattals TO those rebuttals! Something most of you didn't even know existed, because you stopped short, because you accepted what you were fed without question.</p>
<p>And you have the audacity to say I am the one who is 'unscientific.'</p>