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.

I don't assume.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I possess the ability to discern 'woo' from reality, which no doubt can be attributed to my education.

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.

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?