I don't mean to start anything but . . .

College Confidential Community
61

<p>
[quote]
and who cares about Iraqis. You could kill every one of them and I could care less. Every middle eastern person whould die before 1 American</p>

<p>The Only good people are Americans. Others are Trash</p>

<p>Im glad, the rest of the world is slum. We are the only Super Power, so it doesnt matter. Just like Bush may be looked at as the dumbest president. But he is still the most powerfull man on the Planet.</p>

<p>You are a contaminated Mut then. and yes go back to Iran or Isreal for that matter. Both Middle east.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>:eek: In my opinion, you are just ... ughh... i have no word to describe you! calling me and the majority of the world population 'trash'
And the rest of the world is a slum? WT f? I take that you have never seen photos/pictures of the amazing places our world has..
And how could you say you respect the 'american diversity'??</p>

<p>hsufnsjksmls you just frustrate me.</p>

<p>You are Scoth arnt you? Or vrepricone or whatever? Yeah I bet you are! Making up new identities because you can't face others tormenting you.. I guess you need to make up a new one soon - by tomorow, people will be attacking you bad :P shame</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
sounds like a Plan.

[/quote]

hahahha you are scotch</p>

63

<p>what are you talking about nofx? who are Scoth and vrepricone(other memebers)?</p>

64

<p>Alright UCLAri fine have it your way.</p>

<p>"I'd rather rely on the fact that a Boeing 757-200, carrying almost 44,000 liters of fuel, is going to burn VERY hot."</p>

<p>The fires were both smoldering (black smoke) meaning they weren't very hot. Definitely not hot enough to heat up steel (that is all the steel in the building b/c steel in an incredible heat conductor and heats rather evenly) to the point of melting or even weakening it enough. Jet Fuel is basically kerosene not known for it's EXPLOSIVE potential like nitrogen glyceride. Yes it explodes but not that hot. Also if the trusses did fail then they must've failed nicely on every single level to have it fall that perfectly. There was no buckling and the crumbling started about the point of plane entry. Also if planes were going to crash, don't you think they'd try to collapse lower? WTC was meant to stand a plane crash. It was not meant to be demolished (ever so perfectly, I might add).</p>

<p>"This is like those people who send out chain letters because John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4. OOHHHH CREEPY!!! Instead, FEMA should have been conducting studies in Nevada, for fear of attacks on Las Vegas."</p>

<p>Then why was it such a controversy that they did? Why did they try and change their story? Why were there drills for events like this the day of and before lead by Cheney (as in almost exact drills)? Why did the owner of WTC 7 (the third building to collapse) admit to having his building demolished when the gov't said it's structure weakened like WTC 1 & WTC 2 collapsed in the exact same way.</p>

<p>"You ever notice how the insides of a pot with a top on stay warm for long periods of time? Insulation, anyone?"</p>

<p>Heh I understand but those fires were put out while burning up top.and in the ensuing fall. The ground was heated due to thermite demolition blocks. Also why did people on the bridge (forgot the name, errr that's not helping) feel the ground shaking prior to the collapse of WTC. Even if there were explosions up top in the plane, they shouldn't have felt that on the bridge. Why did people hear bang bang bang in quick succession as the towers were falling?</p>

<p>"Sorry, but you obviously never flew before Sept. 11th. No, scratch that, you've never been on an airplane. It's still frighteningly easy to take otherwise dangerous things on a plane."</p>

<p>You're right I haven't but c'mon you're telling me that they weren't watching for people like that? They supposedly had directions how to fly Cessinas and flight simulators (757, 767 are much harder to fly) in the car (they learned on the way to the airport!) and flew them perfectly into buildings after a night of drinking. I can hardly walk after a night of drinking. They had box-cutters, knives, and guns! Also a 4-digit punch code is all that is needed to call a terrorism threat. Guess they were just lucky to get to every single cockpit and subdue the pilots in time on ALL 4 PLANES and turn of transponders. I guess it was convenient considering the sudden ban on armed pilots less than 2 months b/c WTC.</p>

<p>I was tired when I posted my beliefs. Those are mine and you provided no evidence to back yourself up except yourself. Not good enough. I would have provided links but I'm in a hurry and I'll get back to the rest of your stinking accusations when I get back.</p>

65

<p>"You're right I haven't but c'mon you're telling me that they weren't watching for people like that? They supposedly had directions how to fly Cessinas and flight simulators (757, 767 are much harder to fly) in the car (they learned on the way to the airport!) and flew them perfectly into buildings after a night of drinking. I can hardly walk after a night of drinking. They had box-cutters, knives, and guns! Also a 4-digit punch code is all that is needed to call a terrorism threat. Guess they were just lucky to get to every single cockpit and subdue the pilots in time on ALL 4 PLANES and turn of transponders. I guess it was convenient considering the sudden ban on armed pilots less than 2 months b/c WTC."</p>

<p>First of all, let me tell you from the prospective of a student pilot who has actually flown (not on, but actually done the flying) an airplane numerous times-</p>

<p>With a few months training, it wouldn't be that hard to pull off. They didn't need to know how to land, because they weren't planning on landing. They didn't need to know how to fly in bad weather; they could wait until it was clear. Those are the two toughest parts of flying, and they didn't have to worry about them. That is why they were able to navigate to New York and DC- it isn't that difficult!!!</p>

<p>Now, that being said, these conspiracy theory people are a bunch of wackjobs. Someone mentioned earlier that they saw a site where it claimed there was a MISSILE on the wing of the 767 that hit the WTC. What a bunch of crap!! Can you see the Captain doing his walk around before taking off?</p>

<p>"Hmm, whats this missile looking thingy on the wing. Oh well, I guess I'll ignore it."</p>

<p>And the passengers-</p>

<p>"Umm, flight attendant, I believe there is a missile on the wing."</p>

<p>Or the ATC tower-</p>

<p>"United XXX. be advised that there is a missile on your wing. Cleared for takeoff, runway 22R."</p>

<p>How stupid do these people think we are??</p>

66

<p>Now, as for sources, these should answer all of your questions and put those nutjob conspiracy theories to rest-</p>

<p><a href="http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

67

<p>"Also if planes were going to crash, don't you think they'd try to collapse lower? WTC was meant to stand a plane crash. It was not meant to be demolished (ever so perfectly, I might add)."</p>

<p>Wait, didn't you just say that you didn't know how they could possibly fly a 767? And now you are saying they didn't fly it good enough? Which one is it?</p>

<p>The WTC was made to stand a 707 crash. Big difference between a 707 and a 767-200. Look it up.</p>

<p>The first site I posted above can address your WTC questions.</p>

68

<p>"That, and how precise do you have to be when flying a mechanical beast that practically guides itself? I mean, they didn't have to land the goddamn things..."</p>

<p>No only precisely fly less than 2 feet above the ground for a precision hit without damaging any of the White House lawn. But you're right they didn't have to land it . . . </p>

<p>"The same government that couldn't cover up the Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra, and the affairs of various elected officials managed to stage a huge conspiracy. Makes lots of sense."</p>

<p>What I don't think people understand is that this isn't the same government. They have gotten things a lot tighter in the past couple of years. With the levels of Security set forth by the Patriot Act, there is much more obscuring the view of not only the presidents activities (Why would he and Dick Cheney be allowed to interview together for the 9/11 commission with no tape recording?) The kind of things the president gets away with now wouldn't be possible back in the 70's (which seems odd but look at the majority of imperialistic gov'ts like ours and you'll see they got away with murder). And there weren't many people that had to know about it. With the plan figured b/c the "conspiracy theorists" it may have taken very few people. Plus how do you know the gov't hasn't gotten away with more? Oh right it's secret. Those were just the bad few that happened to get out like Waco (it's subsequent cover-up the Oklahoma City Bombing was fine tho).</p>

<p>"I believe that cells phones weren't powerful enough to have multiple ones go through in an airplane."</p>

<p>This I don't claim to be an expert on but the experts say: <a href="http://www.rense.com/general56/cellpp.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.rense.com/general56/cellpp.htm&lt;/a> & this: <a href="http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html&lt;/a>. And look at this interesting connection between the most prominent caller and GWB: <a href="http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wtc4.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wtc4.htm&lt;/a> (way down the page).</p>

<p>Also why were the passenger lists so uncommonly low that day (around 20% for each of the flights). Also you asked me if I was ever on a plane or in an airport and then you admit to having not much experience with them. Hypocrite!</p>

<p>"I believe in adhering to the all-powerful Occam's Razor and going with the simplest answer. And for the record, it wasn't "the government" that lied to us, it was a small portion of the executive branch that used crappy intelligence. The rest of the government just went along and worried about reelection. What, you think Diane Feinsten of CA actually was in concert with the Bush Administration? You are kookier than I thought..."</p>

<p>For one I have no idea who Diane Feisten is. For 2, crappy intelligence is part of it I'll give you that (but that crappy, c'mon, if FDR knew about Hawaii beforehand how could we not have known about real religious kooks who were going to do this? Also even if this is more like Pearl Harbor and they let it happen without facilitation (highly unlikely b/c it was just way too complicated for just the "simple" [which once you look at it, it really isn't more simple than the conspiracy theorist] gov't explanation. Look at both explanation side by side. I dare you. <a href="http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/holmgren01.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/holmgren01.htm&lt;/a>
) then GWB is just as bad for starting a war with a false premise (although that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not getting into)</p>

<p>"no, most people don't think we're stupid."
Alright bad wording but people do think a majority of America got it wrong with the Election and think we're stupid for that. But generalizing like that is obviously something you don't ever do:
"obviously just buy anything the far far leftist contingent says"</p>

<p>Btw I'm I namecalling ("poopmeister", c'mon what grade are we in argue like an adult please) belittling ("dolt" are we Calvin and Hobbes) or swearing? Oh I'm sorry that I'm not. Be more professional.</p>

<p>Here's some stuff I forgot up top:
"What the hell are you talking about? They identified the passengers by iteneraries and purchase logs, dolt.</p>

<ol>
<li>Why was the Pentagon affected differently? Well, because the plane hit the ground at a different speed, and it didn't hit the Pentagon dead-on like the planes in NYC hit the trade towers. It struck the ground a bit first, and then sort of collided afterwards with the building."</li>
</ol>

<p>No the Commission has confirmed all of the Pentagon passengers through DNA as well. And the hijackers, well since they used false names for boarding passes (which they didn't buy at first and were never seen on security cameras until much much later [faked videos with no date]) they were only figured out through passports which miraculously survived while everything else, plane material, passengers, everything, disappeared.</p>

<p>The plane didn't hit the ground before crashing into the Pentagon b/c there are no marks on the lawn. (C'mon do some research before you try to pass crap like that. Most of your other remarks were legitimate even if they were wrong.) It did hit it dead on and due to the Pentagon being stronger material shouldn't that have wrecked the plane worse. The only things it struck on the ground wouldn't have affected it's speed. The only thing that could have affected it's speed and not direction simultaneously is the ground which it never hit.</p>

<p>Finally he did get me:
"The fact that the poster is placing synagogues in a predominantly Muslim country known for oppressing Jews shows the general lack of real understanding of the situations at hand."</p>

<p>Yeah my bad it was late. I don't know much about religions. That I admit was pretty dumb. But the actual words I used weren't important in that sentence but the message I was trying to convey. But I couldn't find the article I was talking about. Here it is: <a href="http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wtc12.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wtc12.htm&lt;/a>. It discribes the weapons used against Iraqi "troops." With weapons that powerful you'd think they'd try and aim them a little better.</p>

69

<p>"What a bunch of crap!! Can you see the Captain doing his walk around before taking off?</p>

<p>"Hmm, whats this missile looking thingy on the wing. Oh well, I guess I'll ignore it.""</p>

<p>Ahhh such acerbic wit and humour. Thanks. But if you read the theory those planes were controlled remotely.</p>

<p>And for the Pentagon so it wasn't a missile. I never said it was. I think it was a smaller plane. Why haven't they released the footage that was captured of it except one? Either keep them all or release them all. It will take me a while to get though these sites. I'm very interested to hear what these sites have to say. Although if any refer to the Popular Mechanics article, I'm instantly disregarding them. I'll get back to you. Look even the "conspiracy theorists" have confessed to not knowing the absolute truth. But if there is a huge commission report that is OFFICIAL and with a War based on it. Then it better be absolutely no holes.</p>

70

<p>From: <a href="http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm&lt;/a>
“• The recovery and identification of the remains of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77</p>

<p>reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team that later found the black boxes). "No large pieces apparently survived," the article said.”</p>

<p>This is from the article on the Pentagon. Alright tell me how a large plane can completely disintegrate into small pieces and DNA can survive the extreme temperatures the Pentagon burned at (only needs a little bit over 100 Celsius to do the trick.</p>

<p>“If American Airlines Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did happen to the jetliner and all its passengers? Did it vanish into thin air?”</p>

<p>Oh they have an answer for this. She obviously didn’t read any theories except for not well-researched ones. Which I don’t go by either.</p>

<p><a href="http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14&lt;/a>
“The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.”</p>

<p>I don’t mean to refute astrophysics and engineers but they are forgetting to address the whole other issue of windows (glass windows!) completely intact. That’s a little more important than the hole it punched. Also the wings just vaporized? Completely? That’s a ton of metal. If it did? How did the passenger DNA survive? I don’t think it was a missle but it was definitely smaller than a 757 but maybe not much.</p>

<p>“: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building.”
Where’s the damage to the lawn? Even they admit in the next question that the plane “slid completely into the building.” That’s funny I thought it hit first? How come other sites have to come up with the liquefying of the plane? Shouldn’t the gov’t report addressed this? They also address security cameras. Yeah one! There were many more clearer ones that were confiscated and taken away by the FBI.</p>

<p>“I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building. . . . Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in.”</p>

<p>Once again gov’t ineptitude shines through. Also I thought he said the plane went completely into the building? Whoops. Also if the wings fell off where are they? Also there are unbroken window frames on the 2nd floor (link).</p>

<p>“Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?”</p>

<p>If I didn’t know any better I’d think he was a conspiracy theorist!!!</p>

<p><a href="http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html&lt;/a>
About the picture. That is awfully good flying considering the pilot that the gov’t said was flying didn’t have the ability to. Better scratch that one.
And so what they proved a plane crashed. I believed that all along (for the most part) but I still don’t understand how the plane disintegrated like they said and leave DNA.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis.htm&lt;/a>
Nice very nice but they are assuming wrong in that the towers collapsed immediately after the hit. They didn’t there are many pictures proving this. Also aren’t reinforced concrete structures supposed to be impervious? They shouldn’t have collapsed then? But if the plane forces them down then they must have. But wait it didn’t. Contradictions!</p>

<p>Also why did the plane crash into the newly renovated (and subsequently less populated) side? It would have been easier to come from the other direction or even easier from the top and cause way more damage. Also why did it fly away from the Pentagon for so long? When the US has a good history of apprehending any flights that stray from flight pattern, why would the terrorists risk it especially with their friends having a good ole time for a decent amount of time already in NYC? Why did Air Force not respond? There are still questions that don’t regard what hit the pentagon. Even “conspiracy theorists” (some better than others) don’t agree on what hit.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm&lt;/a>
“Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause.”</p>

<p>Well this is interesting as well. Why if the aircrafts that crashed into the WTC towers the same, their subsequent explosions so completely different? Would the first one happen to be different b/c no one (supposedly except for the Fireman’s Video, which was blatantly edited for the 9/11 DVD) was watching? Except of course for George W Bush who SAW IT ON THE NEWS? No news footage exists of this and it definitely wasn’t broadcast in real time either. So what did he see that we didn’t (in real time I might add) and not only kept reading (for 20 minutes, good thing he had so much time to waste, country being thrown in to chaos and all) after he officially heard about the 2nd hit but he apparently knew about the 1st too? And he stated this in press conferences twice!</p>

<p>Funny but this site says it hits the ground and then says it crashes between the 1st & 2nd floors disappearing entirely too! That is ludicrous. Why is the evidence contradicting itself? Any more that says this contradiction and I give up on that site.</p>

<p>This is the first edition. I’ll come out with more after I finished some homework.</p>

71

<p>"This is from the article on the Pentagon. Alright tell me how a large plane can completely disintegrate into small pieces and DNA can survive the extreme temperatures the Pentagon burned at (only needs a little bit over 100 Celsius to do the trick."</p>

<p>Easy. Airliners are made of aluminum. Take a soda can, fill it with gasoline, light it on fire, and then launch it at a reinforced wall at 500 MPH...then get back to me. I expect according to your theory that the can will still be completely intact.</p>

<p>Also, look at recent airplane crashed. Swissair 111 hit water and split up into 2 MILLION pieces...biggest piece they recovered was one section of the landing gear...the rest was smitherines...and it didn't even explode on impact. Pretty much the same story on the Valujet crash.</p>

<p>"Oh they have an answer for this. She obviously didn’t read any theories except for not well-researched ones. Which I don’t go by either."</p>

<p>Yep, we all know that the government used its secret death ray to zap the airliners to Area 51...geez...</p>

<p>"just vaporized? Completely? That’s a ton of metal."</p>

<p>Yes. Refer to the crashes listed above. And they are ALUMINUM, not iron or galvenized steel. Look at pretty much every jetliner crash photograph and what do you see? Do you see whole wings still intact? No, they are destroyed on impact. And keep in mind that most accidents happen on takeoff and landing, where speeds are around 200 MPH instead of 500 MPH into the Pentagon. Any airliner that crashes into anything anywhere at any time at speeds in excess of 500 MPH is going to be vaporized, for the most part. What survives will not be much.</p>

<p>"Once again gov’t ineptitude shines through. Also I thought he said the plane went completely into the building? Whoops. Also if the wings fell off where are they? Also there are unbroken window frames on the 2nd floor (link)."</p>

<p>Once again, the wings didn't fall off, they were destroyed. Common sense here...</p>

<p>"Also why did the plane crash into the newly renovated (and subsequently less populated) side? It would have been easier to come from the other direction or even easier from the top and cause way more damage."</p>

<p>Once again, you contradict yourself. First he can't fly the plane, now he is supposed to know what side is renovated, aim at it, and come from the top which is considerably more difficult at 500 MPH? Which is it?</p>

72

<p>I was tired when I posted my beliefs. Those are mine and you provided no evidence to back yourself up except yourself. Not good enough. I would have provided links but I'm in a hurry and I'll get back to the rest of your stinking accusations when I get back.</p>

<p>The true sign of a crackpot is that anything he says is the truth, and what the general public and non-conspiracy theorists believe are just "stinking accusations." Oh, and I provided no evidence because what should I provide? I'm going on what little we all have, and a bit of common sense and understanding of physics and chemistry. Guess that's not enough. Why don't I call in the Secretary of State while I'm at it?</p>

<p>What I don't think people understand is that this isn't the same government. They have gotten things a lot tighter in the past couple of years. With the levels of Security set forth by the Patriot Act, there is much more obscuring the view of not only the presidents activities (Why would he and Dick Cheney be allowed to interview together for the 9/11 commission with no tape recording?) The kind of things the president gets away with now wouldn't be possible back in the 70's (which seems odd but look at the majority of imperialistic gov'ts like ours and you'll see they got away with murder). And there weren't many people that had to know about it. With the plan figured b/c the "conspiracy theorists" it may have taken very few people. Plus how do you know the gov't hasn't gotten away with more? Oh right it's secret. Those were just the bad few that happened to get out like Waco (it's subsequent cover-up the Oklahoma City Bombing was fine tho).</p>

<p>Jesus, you sound like a Howard Hughes type who sits in his room collecting ****. Look, just THINK about it. How hard is it to keep a secret when you have three or more friends who know it. Now, have a secret that involves the destruction of two buildings and part of the Pentagon, and you think they could keep it secret? You are dense.</p>

<p>Also why did the plane crash into the newly renovated (and subsequently less populated) side? It would have been easier to come from the other direction or even easier from the top and cause way more damage. Also why did it fly away from the Pentagon for so long? When the US has a good history of apprehending any flights that stray from flight pattern, why would the terrorists risk it especially with their friends having a good ole time for a decent amount of time already in NYC? Why did Air Force not respond? There are still questions that don’t regard what hit the pentagon. Even “conspiracy theorists” (some better than others) don’t agree on what hit.</p>

<p>What is the meaning of life?</p>

<p>Loosely connected microfacts don't mean nything. Instead of arguing that the government was so incredibly organized and secure, maybe think about it the more realistic way: The government F'ed up, and it got caught with its pants down. Duh. </p>

<p>For one I have no idea who Diane Feisten is. For 2, crappy intelligence is part of it I'll give you that (but that crappy, c'mon, if FDR knew about Hawaii beforehand how could we not have known about real religious kooks who were going to do this? Also even if this is more like Pearl Harbor and they let it happen without facilitation (highly unlikely b/c it was just way too complicated for just the "simple" [which once you look at it, it really isn't more simple than the conspiracy theorist] gov't explanation. Look at both explanation side by side. I dare you. <a href="http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/holmgren01.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/holmgren01.htm&lt;/a>
) then GWB is just as bad for starting a war with a false premise (although that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not getting into)</p>

<p>Diane Feinstein is a member of your US Senate, and someone who makes the news pretty regularly. Oh, but right, the news is part of the evil government machine. Ooohhhh, scaawwwwyy!!!</p>

<p>Also why were the passenger lists so uncommonly low that day (around 20% for each of the flights). Also you asked me if I was ever on a plane or in an airport and then you admit to having not much experience with them. Hypocrite!</p>

<p>For the record, I said I've never turned my phone on during a flight. I said nothing about whether I've flown. I've flown many times in different countries. Paranoid and can't read.</p>

73

<p>Alright UCLAri, I can't go on like this forever (much to your chargin I suppose). We'll have to agree to disagree. But if there is one thing I do know for sure, it is that I am not a crack-pot, dense, kooky, loony, crazy or pretty much every other word you've used to deride me. I just try to argue my case like a grown-up but I am sick and tired of the namecalling.</p>

<p>It is bad enough being in the minority but it is even worse when the majority is rude and insulting. I don't call you names, swear, and I don't insult your intelligence. I just try to use what I know to convince people but you are obviously so uncouth as to lash out at people over an internet forum. If you want to be rotten, fine be a jerk. Whenever the truth is found out, I may be wrong (and I'll be the first to admit it too) but I can believe what I want to. Whoever wins in the end, at least I was nicer.</p>

74

<p>Illini- just checking out what you've been going through here. the sad part is that there are those who if they cannot win you over, will just try to attack and destroy you, whether it is with name calling or bullets. Pretty much what the present administration does.</p>

<p>Such tactics are typical of bullys, those who cannot reason and is tried and true in warfare. You demonize and demean your opponent so you can justify that they are less than human and be abusive to them.</p>

<p>You're wasting your time with people like this, you can't reason with 'em and they are not interested in truth or understanding. They are interested in winning (the argument, the war, whatever) and at any cost and typically for reasons they've long forgotten or never understood to begin with. And as you said it yourself, this is an anonymous website worth nothing much more than entertainment value.</p>

75

<p>Oh, give me a break. If you guys can't stand the heat, then get the hell out of the kitchen.</p>

<p>I personally dislike this administration, but I sure like logic and sound science. You guys need to get over it, because there's a little issue with believing in conspiracies: You're bound to get called a crackpot.</p>

<p>Otherwise, just don't argue the point.</p>

76

<p>"Illini- just checking out what you've been going through here. the sad part is that there are those who if they cannot win you over, will just try to attack and destroy you, whether it is with name calling or bullets. Pretty much what the present administration does.</p>

<p>Such tactics are typical of bullys, those who cannot reason and is tried and true in warfare. You demonize and demean your opponent so you can justify that they are less than human and be abusive to them.</p>

<p>You're wasting your time with people like this, you can't reason with 'em and they are not interested in truth or understanding. They are interested in winning (the argument, the war, whatever) and at any cost and typically for reasons they've long forgotten or never understood to begin with. And as you said it yourself, this is an anonymous website worth nothing much more than entertainment value."</p>

<p>Selective reading, eh? Next time try reading all of the posts before you make a comment like that.</p>

77

<p>The funniest part is that I listed every point, gave a concise and scientific counterargument, only to have Illini and others go "wah wah no evidence." Gimme a break. What should I do, show pictures of the crashes and forensic evidence? </p>

<p>Neither can you, so go with whatever explination is SIMPLEST. OCCAM'S RAZOR, people.</p>

78

<p>To Illini and the other wackjobs complaining about being called such names, there's a saying about a shoe fitting that comes to mind...</p>

<p>Aw, but don't worry, just take comfort in the belief that anyone who relies on common sense and logic (if it wasn't a plane, where are the people?) is just a part of the big government-machine...oh the secrets we know...mwhahahahaha! Because as we know, the reasoning of countless scientific publications, the scrutiny of the modern media, all the eyewitness accounts supporting what everyone knows to be true, etc. is of little credibility when pitted against a couple armchair-engineers at a computer screen...gimme a break!
.
.
.
.
Freemasons run the country!!!! ;)</p>

79

<p>T3h Zionist Conspiracies!! Isr@31 w@s b3h1nd September 11!</p>

<p>Edit: Llama is a moron.</p>

80

<p>Screw all of you, it's the underpants gnomes. Jeez.</p>