Supplying "documentary evidence" is not telling me what you actually believe.

Anyone can make a documentary. They all have spin. ALL.

Anyone can link to or post a documentary but unless you yourself made the documentary, I can't assume you believe everything in it.

The implication that you do believe it is there, since you are essentially promoting it and "dissing" and laughing at all other hypothesis, but you have never stated what you actually believe.

That is why I am asking you what you believe. I don't assume.

What is your hypothesis? Do you totally accept the official account of 9-11?

YES OR NO

I'm still waiting for you Hotrod, to make a commitment of your own belief and tell me what you believe.

You wouldn't want me to assume anything. So please tell me what you actually believe. If you are not sure, then say so.

Do you believe the official 9-11 account as reported by our Media and as told to the public by our Political leaders?

Do you believe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the master mind of 9-11?

Just a simple yes or no will do and then we are done.

You just need to be strait with me. I don't want to play this ridiculous game you so love to play.

I will check back tomorrow for your answer.

Good night, sleep tight.

Documentary evidence does not mean a 'documentary'. It means supplying evidence in the form of documents, that which is documented, provenanced, agreed upon by a body of specialists, eyewitness accounts etc. It doesn't mean crap off History Channel.



I only 'diss' (such a colloquial term) that which is obviously irrational, unfounded, lacking documentary evidence (not a documentary in the film and television sense), or illogical. That is too say, that which is obviously bullsh*t (to use another colloquial term). The fanciful stuff belongs in the same category as religion, the paranormal, the supernatural-'woo' as we call it in the Skeptics.

I keep an open mind on the subject, and I'm receptive to science or certified documents that contradict the events as stated, however, nothing as yet has been posited apart from some mindless rubbish by people on the internet.



In my experience, you often do, but to be more specific, you arrive at a conclusion using a flawed causality owing to preconceptions that tend to ignore more rational possibilities.

Wait all you like.



You will continue to do that no matter what I state.



Oh, the irony It is spelled 'straight' btw.



It's when you start this kind of bullying that I immediately think, **** you!



It's early afternoon here.

So you refuse to admit or state or declare what you actually believe and then you criticize me if I dare assume anything.

If I don't know what your position is, then it is impossible to have any real [debate] or discussion with you.

So what evolves is nothing but you ridiculing and insulting anyone and everyone who expresses their doubts and opinions [about anything] that differs from you, or asks questions about 9-11 in particular.

I think it makes you feel more 'intelligent' or superior to make fun of people whom 'you feel' are "stupid." Its an ego thing. Its all an ego thing.

Game over.

No, I don't. You just haven't read my response. Again, with more added.

I keep an open mind on the subject, and I'm receptive to science or certified documents that contradict the events as stated, however, nothing as yet has been posited as an intelligent alternative. The alternative theories I've read (and I've read them all) are flawed in logic, comprehension or lacking credible sources. Allow me to elaborate, I'm a member of the Skeptics and have access (as does everyone who knows where to find it) to a vast library of material. Eye-witness accounts, scientific papers, photographs (with provenence) and much more are available within the archive. There is a whole section devoted to 9/11 CT's and members include an air traffic controller who was on duty that day; scientists who've conducted tests disproving the thermite/thermate/nano-thermite theory; engineers and physicists who have provided papers dealing with the flawed works of many of the twoofer hierarchy etc... I'm highly skeptical of unfounded claims and wild accusations and I possess the ability to discern 'woo' from reality, which no doubt can be attributed to my education.

Is that clearer for you?



See above.



I love the irony. You never post any documentary evidence for any of your rants and you insult and accuse others of all sorts of behaviour. Jesse Ventura? C'mon, do you really take that idiot seriously?



You're assuming again.



You've said that before and it proved to be untrue.

Boy! Ain't that the truth!

Crystal clear.

You don't actually believe the official story, (you are keeping an open mind) so you are actively looking for viable alternatives.

You are a looking for the truth.

You are a truther.

Now how about being a little "skeptical" of the official account of 9-11 and tell me what you don't like about it that has led you down this path in search of viable alternatives.

Crystal clear.



That is quite a stretch of my statement. I examine the alternatives that are posited.



Not actively.



No, I'm far more intelligent than that.



You're assuming again.

The U.S. government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was the work of Islamic terrorists, and there would still be people in the USA denying that 9/11 was the work of Islamic terrorists.

When you believe that the U.S. government is controlled by a fictional evil cabal, then you won't believe what the U.S. government says no matter what the U.S. government says, because you have been programmed to believe that the U.S. government is guilty of lying until proven innocent.

[quot]
The U.S. government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was the work of Islamic terrorists, and there would still be people in the USA denying that 9/11 was the work of Islamic terrorists.

When you believe that the U.S. government is controlled by a fictional evil cabal, then you won't believe what the U.S. government says no matter what the U.S. government says, because you have been programmed to believe that the U.S. government is guilty of lying until proven innocent.


OOPs

We find it absurd that three buildings fell as described and even more absurd that a plane could penetrate the protected air space over washington after both towers had been hit.

That's just for starters.

I do not think the government lies about everything just over national security issues.

What am I assuming? You are either skeptical of the official report pandered to the public via the media; or why would you be a member of the "Skeptics" who have access to a vast "library of material on the subject?"

This group of skeptics you speak of is either a genuine group of skeptics who are looking at the official 9-11 account with skeptical eyes and looking for the truth, (truthers) OR they are a group of apologists who have accepted and defend the official version of 9-11 and are busy attempting to debunk anything else.

The definition of "truther" is a person who is seeking the truth about 9-11. So you are either a "truther" seeking the truth, or you have accepted the official version of 9-11 as the truth.



If you truly do possess the ability to discern 'woo' (what ever that is) from reality, due to your vast education, then I eagerly await your conclusion.

Do you believe the official version about who was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and do you believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the master mind of 9-11?

If you are not sure, and are still trying to discern what the truth is, then you are a "truther."

You may as well admit it.

You are a truther.

I find it absurd that you find it absurd.

Also, Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, was approaching the Reagan National Airport before it changed course and headed for the Pentagon. The last time that I checked, the Reagan National Airport isn't protected air space. Commercial aircraft are expected to be there.

How far off course was it from its flight plan?

If I may interject here, if you had ever flown into Regan (as I have), you would know that it's not that far (by air) to the Pentagon. So if it veered off course, it could be there in a matter of minutes and there is absolutely no way jets could have scrambled that fast. Even if they were airborne, the chances of them being close enough to intercept were almost nil. Not to mention shooting it down near downtown DC would have meant thousands of innocent casualties. What would you have proposed they do?

Flight 77 was indeed off-course, but when it approached the airport, it might have given people the impression that it was going to land there.

Peccy has a point about shooting down the Flight. It really was a no-win situation.

Did federal officials make mistakes during the event? Sure. However, those mistakes do not imply that the events of 9/11 as explained by federal officials are false.

One one hand, the however many passengers and a building that could withstand a lot more than the average structure; or, at least 1/4 mile of complete destruction and the all out chaos that would have followed?...what would have been your choice if the government was so wrong?

My comment about federal officials making mistakes did not pertain specifically to Flight 77.

Wasn't directing it at you David, was directing it at these troofers