I just have a few points to make upon rereading this topic.
Because someone says ignoring something is an attempt at denial does not make it so.
It is absolute shizzle when someone writes an article and makes some asshole "if you ignore my points, then you're a ..."
Ignoring facts and evidence is denial in it's truest form. When someone is "in denial", aren't they ignoring all of the facts and evidence that say, oh, that they're sick or something? Just like you or anyone who ignores this. What's more, you're confusing "ignore" with "dispute". I believe you're confusing what he said with the "you're a moron if you don't agree" classic argument. Put simply, if you simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility of the WTC collapse not being caused by crashing airplanes, then you are being willfully igorant and are in denial.
Refuting his points are a different story.
and no apparent personal achievement of degree oor education posted a long with their article.
You're sounding like the classic Celtic rebuttal. "You don't matter because you don't play here any more." It's the same thing. Does
not having a degree make his points any less valid?
One being the "mysterious undergournd fires which burned exactly 100 days as a means to destroy the buildings" and the "obvious use of quick detonating explosives used to destroy the buildings." Those two ideas are opposite.
No, they're not. The underground fires and the explosives both say that there was some outside chemicals. Jet fuel does not burn for one hundred days, so there was other chemicals involved; perhaps not the same chemicals that facilitated the systematic implosion.
Oh, and dont think I was closed minded. I read the entire article. I wont accept it unless I see proof from the media (the kind that is very critical of our gvmt, not the cheesy flag-waving media).
News flash: the Internet and it's websites are media. And guess what? This particular site is pretty critical of the US Government. Unless you mean that you won't accept it until the Government openly admits it's part in this, which will never happen, whether they did it or not. No, you're not being closed-minded at all, are you?
First off, who would wana belive it? Thoses kinda of pll fragglewert up freedom of speach.
Nobody
wants to believe it, just like no one wants to believe when a family member dies. But just because you don't wan't it doesn't make it true. And that freedom of speech comment boils my blood. Why not switch to socialism if you aren't going to allow people to be critical of your government with cold, hard facts?
I'm Glad our country doesnt take shizzle n e more from thoses terrioust nations.
Terrorist nations? That statement better well had came out wrong, or you're an ignorant bastard who needs his head kicked in.
IQ doesnt run a country... Its planning understanding of polotics, morals, and many other things... Like i said before.. I bet Bush was thinking.. Hell those rag heads flew a plane into thoses towers, why not plant a bomb, or sumthing so the towers colapse and kill more people. btw I just seen sumthing the other night of how the towers themselvs feel. including extream close ups, They never mentioed no other explosions other than those big jumbo jets flying into the towers.. besides where do u pll get off on beliving this uncreditiable sorce. Belive what u will.. thats ur right... as a human..
Stupid people shouldn't be at the head of one of the most powerful nations on Earth. IQ is intelligence, not just chemistry, math, or what-have-you. IQ affects one's ability with things like politics and diplomacy. And did you read the site at
all? They didn't plant the charges
after the planes hit. The whjole thing was planned. And, yeah, a TV show is going to tell you that demolition charges brought the tower down, of course. And how is this source incredible? Because it isn't in newspapers?
Anyway, I'll try to be a little more up-to-date with my responses now.
