[TRUECRISTIAN]

I don't see what George Bush has done wrong, he's destroying a bunch of people who shouldn't be in the 1st place. I say the Iraqis are just here to take up space on this planet. They're not doing anything to benifit us. George Bush is doing a great job where he is. I hope he sends a nuke to Iraq and just wipe that country out of the map. The only thing the Iraqis know how to do is terrorize countries, they're all terrorists.Ok, I'm going to say it, I think George Bush is good. He's one of the greatest president ever.. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! he attack Iraq and many Iraqis died.. so what? I hope he bombs Iraq again, I seriously don't give a crap if the Iraqis die, I hope bush kills them all, bomb the hell out of Iraq. serioulsy I think the Iraqis are nothing but terrorist and George Bush is doing the world a favour by bombing them and killing them. they just like to bomb the hell out of each other, so the Americans attacking Iraq doesn't really make that much of a difference, they're just speeding up the process. So I solute George Bush

[Willie Bee]

Originally Posted by TRUECRISTIAN

So I solute George Bush

A lot of us would like to 'solute' the SOB, as in give him a good scrubbing in a highly caustic and acidic solution. And, you sir, are the typical born again hypocrite whose brain often doesn't know what is ass is going to say next.

[Dark Horse]

Good points. Bush is the prime example of why born again Christians should never have power. To this megalomaniac a trip to the Middle East has biblical significance. He wants to end his evil reign with a bang (preferably nukes on Iran), just as he started it with 9/11. (Bush didn't organize 9/11. That high tech operation would be as much beyond him as beyond those cave-dwellers in Afghanistan. But quite within the reach of the Mossad, whose fingerprints are all over the operation). Bush's trip to Israel revealed him -to anyone who hadn't yet realized it - as someone who places the interests of Israel far above those of America. He's trying to relive the Old Testament. The f*cking little moron sees Hitlers in every Middle Eastern country starting with an 'I', except the one that matters.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Willie Bee

And, you sir, are the typical born again hypocrite whose brain often doesn't know what is ass is going to say next.

I think he was joking.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

(Bush didn't organize 9/11. That high tech operation would be as much beyond him as beyond those cave-dwellers in Afghanistan. But quite within the reach of the Mossad, whose fingerprints are all over the operation).

This from an "SBR Hall of Famer"? Maybe if SBR stands for "Senseless, Brainless, and Removed from Reality".

[Dark Horse]

Study the subject for at least a 1000 hours. Then come back.

Good place to start: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...a/volume23.htm

Research by US scholars, yet published by European Elsevier...

For the record, I'd put my entire bankroll, and all future earnings, on 9/11 being an inside job.

Anyway, no need to sidetrack the thread from the little fascist's Middle Eastern escapades.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Study the subject for at least a 1000 hours. Then come back.

Good place to start: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...a/volume23.htm

Research by US scholars, yet published by European Elsevier...

For the record, I'd put my entire bankroll, and all future earnings, on 9/11 being an inside job.

Anyway, no need to sidetrack the thread from the little fascist's Middle Eastern escapades.

I've read quite a bit about 9-11. As for your theories:

On the one hand, you say that GWB wasn't smart enough to organize 9-11, and that it was the work of Mossad. Now you say it was an "inside job". The least you could do is be consistent with your delusions.

Israel has exactly ONE friend in the world - the USA. And according to you, they initiated a horrific attack against the only ally they have, for what purpose, God only knows, if, as you claim, GWB is in their pocket anyway. The Israelis would have nothing to gain and EVERYTHING to lose if this supposed plot was ever uncovered. Are you saying that Bush and the entire US intelligence service aren't smart enough to uncover what you and your fellow nutjobs know? Or are you saying that Bush and the intelligence agencies are covering up for them? That would make your whole theory even more ludicrous - if the Israelis have that much control over our Government, then what possible motive would they have to attack us?

I guess you think that bin-Laden, who has admitted to the 9-11 attack, is covering up for the Israelis as well.

Get a grip on reality, pal.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by coldhardfacts

I've read quite a bit about 9-11. As for your theories:

On the one hand, you say that GWB wasn't smart enough to organize 9-11, and that it was the work of Mossad. Now you say it was an "inside job". The least you could do is be consistent with your delusions.

Israel has exactly ONE friend in the world - the USA. And according to you, they initiated a horrific attack against the only ally they have, for what purpose, God only knows, if, as you claim, GWB is in their pocket anyway. The Israelis would have nothing to gain and EVERYTHING to lose if this supposed plot was ever uncovered. Are you saying that Bush and the entire US intelligence service aren't smart enough to uncover what you and your fellow nutjobs know? Or are you saying that Bush and the intelligence agencies are covering up for them? That would make your whole theory even more ludicrous - if the Israelis have that much control over our Government, then what possible motive would they have to attack us?

I guess you think that bin-Laden, who has admitted to the 9-11 attack, is covering up for the Israelis as well.

Get a grip on reality, pal.

I'm saying that there is little or no difference between the interests of the neocons and the zionists.

As for your 'arguments', you're just brainwashed. Not your fault, but you are still responsible for it.

[JRS21386]

People who think 9/11 was staged piss me off... I mean come on people, there is no way on earth that this could have been pulled off with all the people tied into it...

As far as hating the president, No matter who he is at any given time, people are going to hate him... I give George Bush props for not folding under the pressure of everyone else...

I can't wait until Obama is nominated so he gets a taste of what the position is all about.. Obama will not win the general election, his lack of experience will hurt him.. He is naive.. The dude has a muslim name, has never served in the military, and has only been over seas ONCE in his entire life... come on... he will never get elected..

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by JRS21386

People who think 9/11 was staged piss me off... I mean come on people, there is no way on earth that this could have been pulled off with all the people tied into it...

That type of reasoning ties into why someone said: "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

It has nothing to do with research, and everything with acting the incredulous part. Oh well, at least Americans are still good at something.

[JRS21386]

Why on earth would any American destroy something like that and ruin that many peoples lives? I mean George Bush doesnt seem to me like he cares about what anyone thinks, so why would he need a reason that big to invade Iraq? I think he would just do it... I mean he hasnt listened to anyone over the past 4 years...

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

That type of reasoning ties into why someone said: "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

Sir, you are too delusional to realize that YOU and your ilk are the primest examples of this aphorism.

[Dark Horse]

At least we can agree that there are two streams in American society. Those who believe the official 9/11 account, and those who don't. I originally shared your belief. So I understand both perspectives. But you, most likely, are too intimidated to seriously and objectively consider the other possibility. Because if you were wrong you would have to adjust your world view to a spectacular degree. And you are intelligent enough to realize that. And so the issue is officially taboo. I have a pretty good imagination, but I could never dream up something as ridiculous as the official 9/11 theory. (I have discussed the topic in great detail, and for years, with many friends, so I am past the point where going over the same ground is still interesting to me.)

[JRS21386]

Everything is interesting... You could take that approach with any situation... Like Bill Clinton had the USS Cole bombed to take media exposure off him and his impeachment hearings..

[Dark Horse]

Start out here: WTC #7

What are the chances of this building coming down, in the exact manner of controlled demolition, without a plane flying into it? (Larry Silverstein, the owner, later admitted that the building was 'pulled'; referring to controlled demolition). Interestingly, the BBC reported WTC #7 had collapsed, with the building still standing in the background! (ouch)

If indeed we have one building down due to controlled demolition, what about the other two? Fire was deemed the cause, but no high riser has ever come down due to fire. What are the chances that three high risers come down on the same day in the same city? What would the line be for something like that?

It doesn't help that Larry Silverstein only months earlier had become the new lease holder of the Twin Towers. (he won billions in court, even going so far as demanding twice the amount, because two towers came down).

That's just the tip of the iceberg. As I said, I'm not going to spend too much time on it anymore. By now, those so inclined will have already done their research, and those not so inclined tend to be very certain that such research is not required. Many simply don't want to know.

Motive? Look at the world (and US policy) before and after 9/11.

[JRS21386]

I've seen videos and all, and heard stories, i just dont know how something that big could be pulled off, and for that reason..

[Dark Horse]

Anyway, Bush in Israel, expressing his extremist views as if they represent the USA's, is very disconcerting. There can be little doubt that the neocons and zionists want war/military action against Iran. They've been angling for that for a long time.

[TRUECRISTIAN]

think we all know who was responsible for that, the Godless liberals who cannot stand having their immorality shoved back in their ugly face!! The defenders of free thought, the Big Bang theory and evolution, are not only striking out at me, but at all Christians. . Last night, while I was sitting on my front-porch swing, gazing up at Heaven, President Bush appeared to me in a vision. He told me that my work was not yet finished, there were still many liberals who had not yet seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!! President Bush would not be in the White House right now if God didn't want him there. President Bush was put in a position of leadership in order to wipe the devil's religion of Islam off the face of the Earth, so that the Christian God can fill the world with His message of peace and love. President Bush has stated numerous times that he speakes with God in the Oval Office, he even asked God for military advice before the invasion of Iraq. Modern liberalism is the equivalent of atheism, liberals are in favor of killing babies, raising taxes, teaching evolution, and same sex marriage. Jesus is opposed to all of these horrible things.

[Dark Horse]

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Anyway, Bush in Israel, expressing his extremist views as if they represent the USA's, is very disconcerting. There can be little doubt that the neocons and zionists want war/military action against Iran. They've been angling for that for a long time.

In the first place, I don't know of any other instances in history where huge airplanes loaded with jet fuel crashed into buildings.


But that aside, once again, you don't address any of my points, and your own arguments do you in. Even ignoring the fact that, based on your "theories" , this Silverstein guy would have been the mastermind behind 911 , if the "neocons" and "zionists" were so intent on getting us into a war with Iran, and this ostensibly was why they caused 911, why didn't they set up the Iranians as the hijackers? Or at least a few Iraqis?

As I've always said, people believe whatever they want to believe.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by coldhardfacts

In the first place, I don't know of any other instances in history where huge airplanes loaded with jet fuel crashed into buildings.

No need for theories, such as your alternative scenario as 'proof' that it couldn't been an inside job. I would never ask anyone to accept the Mossad angle. That is my conclusion, but it came all the way at the end of a lengthy process of research. An investigation such as this shouldn't start out with any assumption. Merely with questions.

Let's say you're right about jet fuel being responsible for the collapse of the Twin Towers (scientifically impossible, because jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. [defenders of the official theory then say that it was merely necessary to 'bend' steel. But that doesn't explain the puddles of molten steel that were found... and that were still glowing days after the buildings had collapsed]).

Let's say that jet fuel indeed was the culprit. That would have to qualify as a belief, rather than a cold hard fact, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt.

How then did WTC #7 collapse? No plane ever flew into that building. What's your scientific explanation?

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

[Dark Horse]

While you're working on that problem, let me add this picture. This is Twin Tower material.



The beam in the middle tells a story (one of many found like this). To ensure that a building collapses on its own footprint, controlled demolition uses explosives that cut through metal in specific angles. Because of these angles, beams cut in this manner can only slide in one direction during the collapse. Without this technique - highly advanced, because timing is absolutely critical -, a building would not come down on its own footprint. Don't take my word for it. Ask any controlled demolition expert.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

While you're working on that problem, let me add this picture. This is Twin Tower material.



The beam in the middle tells a story (one of many found like this). To ensure that a building collapses on its own footprint, controlled demolition uses explosives that cut through metal in specific angles. Because of these angles, beams cut in this manner can only slide in one direction during the collapse. Without this technique - highly advanced, because timing is absolutely critical -, a building would not come down on its own footprint. Don't take my word for it. Ask any controlled demolition expert.

This is absurd. Are you suggesting that planes didn't fly into Twin Towers 1 and 2? Or are you suggesting that the plane hijackings were just a clever ruse to distract people from the explosives that had been set from within by Silverstein/Mossad/neocons/zionists? (all code words - we all know what you mean).

As for Tower 7 (in which, incidentally, no one was killed), the final report on how it collapsed will be released this summer - I'll await that report before I reach conclusions about what exactly caused its collapse. I will say that it's curious, if your theories are to be considered, why "they" didn't choose the closer Tower 6 to destroy, or why it would even have been necessary to destroy a third tower without the "cover" of an airplane crash.

A good case has to be built on more than bits of circumstantial evidence, hearsay, and overt prejudices. Logic, the ability to reason, and the power of deduction must be included in the equation. Folks like you are the reason OJ is a free man today.

[Dark Horse]

Note that you can't add a single post without adding an insult. While we're on the subject of 'folks like you'.

Just give a scientific explanation of why building number 7 came down.

If considering that issue is too much to ask, which apparently it is, I'm not going to waste more time on you.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Note that you can't add a single post without adding an insult. While we're on the subject of 'folks like you'.

Just give a scientific explanation of why building number 7 came down.

If considering that issue is too much to ask, which apparently it is, I'm not going to waste more time on you.

I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to be. But I can recognize junk science when I see it. Obviously, the heat from the fires and flying debris from the north tower damaged Building 7 structurally, and perhaps there were inherent structural defects. As I said, I will wait for the official report this summer, and draw my UNBIASED conclusions from there.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by coldhardfacts

I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to be. But I can recognize junk science when I see it. Obviously, the heat from the fires and flying debris from the north tower damaged Building 7 structurally, and perhaps there were inherent structural defects. As I said, I will wait for the official report this summer, and draw my UNBIASED conclusions from there.

Well, if you believe that, good luck on life's journey.

I guess you don't need to see the video where Silverstein says they decided to 'pull' the building.

The point is that you work from a preconceived notion (the official story), rather than from an objective perspective (looking at the 'cold hard facts' without trying to fit them into what you think you already know). Not only that, but you don't trust you own judgment enough to even consider looking at the facts objectively, instead handing over responsibility for your beliefs to the proper authorities, in this case 'real scientists', who will handily provide you with your 'unbiased conclusions'.

It is rather uncommon for someone to refer to being unbiased while exhibiting every characteristic of being the exact opposite. In that, you are at least somewhat original.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Well, if you believe that, good luck on life's journey.

I guess you don't need to see the video where Silverstein says they decided to 'pull' the building.

The point is that you work from a preconceived notion (the official story), rather than from an objective perspective (looking at the 'cold hard facts' without trying to fit them into what you think you already know). Not only that, but you don't trust you own judgment enough to even consider looking at the facts objectively, instead handing over responsibility for your beliefs to the proper authorities, in this case 'real scientists', who will handily provide you with your 'unbiased conclusions'.

It is rather uncommon for someone to refer to being unbiased while exhibiting every characteristic of being the exact opposite. In that, you are at least somewhat original.

OK, so according to you, the investigators of the WTC tower 7 collapse are part of the conspiracy. Along with the 911 commission and the 535 members of Congress. Along with the thousands of federal , state, and local officials who investigated the crimes in NYC, DC, and PA. Along with top officials and investigators from the every intelligence agency in the Government. Along with those in the Executive Branch and the military who planned and perpetrated the crime. Along with Silverstein and the people he hired to blow up the buildings and hijack the airplanes (as a ruse, of course). Along with the Mossad. Along with all of the "zionists" and "neocons" - thrown into the mix because, well, whenever there's been trouble throughout history they've always been thrown into the mix.

The only reaction any sane person can have to this kind of paranoia is, there but for the grace of God go I.

[ms61853]

http://enfarcer.livejournal.com/115546.html

I'm pretty fed up with arguing with people over politics. I've come to realize that spouting off at the mouth and forcing opinions down peoples throats doesn't do anybody any good, and it just makes whoever's doing the forcing look like a jackass. I realize that. And I've learned that it's just stupid to judge people by their political outlook, whether they're liberal or conservative, religious or secular, for the war or against it, whatever. People usually have a valid viewpoint no matter what their stance is, and we need to respect diverse viewpoints. If you feel the need to protest the war, more power to you. It's your right as an American. If you support the war, good for you, it shows you have resolve. If you're fighting the war, then you're an infinitely better person than I am. It's just stupid for people to get all pissy over politics, because at the end of the day, we're all Americans, we're all human and we all pretty much want the same thing: peace, prosperity and a comfortable life. I respect you no matter what.

That all said, Truthers need to get shot in the back of the ****ing head. Every last one of them. Line 'em up against the wall like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. ****ing lame-dick conspiracy theorist tinfoil-hat ****tards, every ****ing last douchebag piss-gargling one of them. IQ of ****ing mayonnaise, I swear. I'm so sick of the vacuum-skulled pissant walking piles of drooling slime clod mother****ers being looked at as if they have a valid ****ing opinion, and NOT being thrown into a ****ing rubber room where they ****ing belong. And if you number amongst these witless shitstains, let me know right here and now so that I can never ****ing associate with you again, and so that I know to beat you over the head with a ****ing lamp if I ever see you in person, because something bright needs to make contact with your thick goddamned skulls. And don't even try to give me your dipshit Alex Jones/Charlie Sheen/Rosie O'Donnell/back page of some used toilet paper of a worthless anusbreath socialist newsletter horseshit "Loose Change" tardbucket drivel that's been debunked by everyone smarter than burnt toast a thousand ****ing times over. I'm serious; you people need to be held underwater until the bubbles stop. You're worthless. ****ing worthless. You and your whole goddamned outfit are worthless. Die in a fire, and come back to life so you can die in another fire. Jeez.

[Dark Horse]

CHF,

I didn't ask you to believe anything. All I asked you is to explain the collapse of WTC 7.

As to Congress, they were played like infants in kindergarten. To even question the events of 9/11 was considered treachery in those "you are either with us or against us" days. The culprits behind 9/11 were known -by name - in no time at all, and that was the end of it. As proof, notwithstanding the 'fire' that pulverized the Twin Towers to thin dust, they managed to find a passport of one of the highjackers just a few blocks away... (lol). To pose serious questions would have been political suicide, in the same way that any criticism of Israel is considered political suicide. Unfortunately, there is no courage in Washington.

You rely too much on the opinions of others. I asked you to rely on your own observation, and you can't do it. I didn't ask you to connect all sorts of conclusions to it. Just look at this one piece of the puzzle, and tell me what you see. Without worrying what 'everybody else' (all those people you drummed up) might think about that. Simply look at the collapse of WTC#7. I'll add that Silverstein said it was pulled. There is video of that interview. If you don't know what 'pull' means in this contest, contact your nearest controlled demolition office. And, while this might be far too much to ask for such a one as yourself, do study some controlled demolition videos and science. Comparative study...

----------------
To the other fellow. You have a very bright future. They'd love to have you. In some place like Guantanamo Bay.

[square1]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

If you don't know what 'pull' means in this contest, contact your nearest controlled demolition office.

To 'pull' means to tear down a building by pulling it down with cables, as was done with WTC 6.

Can you give an example of anyone not named Larry Silverstein anywhere, at any time, ever using the word 'pull' to describe destroying a building by explosives?

[Dark Horse]

Fair enough.

I'm not going for a Pull-itzer in analyzing Silverstein's words. More interesting to me is that of all the damaged buildings in the WTC complex that day, only the three owned by Silverstein collapsed like houses of cards.

Do you know of any other highrisers that have come down in this fashion as a result of fire?


http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...collapses.html

[coldhardfacts]

[quote=Dark Horse;767317]CHF,

I didn't ask you to believe anything. All I asked you is to explain the collapse of WTC 7.

As to Congress, they were played like infants in kindergarten. To even question the events of 9/11 was considered treachery in those "you are either with us or against us" days. The culprits behind 9/11 were known -by name - in no time at all, and that was the end of it. As proof, notwithstanding the 'fire' that pulverized the Twin Towers to thin dust, they managed to find a passport of one of the highjackers just a few blocks away... (lol). To pose serious questions would have been political suicide, in the same way that any criticism of Israel is considered political suicide. Unfortunately, there is no courage in Washington.

You rely too much on the opinions of others. I asked you to rely on your own observation, and you can't do it. I didn't ask you to connect all sorts of conclusions to it. Just look at this one piece of the puzzle, and tell me what you see. Without worrying what 'everybody else' (all those people you drummed up) might think about that. Simply look at the collapse of WTC#7. I'll add that Silverstein said it was pulled. There is video of that interview. If you don't know what 'pull' means in this contest, contact your nearest controlled demolition office. And, while this might be far too much to ask for such a one as yourself, do study some controlled demolition videos and science. Comparative study...

Sir, you (or at least any rational person) CANNOT reach conclusions by "looking at just one piece of the puzzle". You CANNOT infer all kinds of intricate conspiracies involving literally tens of thousands of people from the misconstrued statements of one distraught individual.

ms61853 expresses my feelings about all of this with more clarity than I ever could.

[square1]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Fair enough.

I'm not going for a Pull-itzer in analyzing Silverstein's words. More interesting to me is that of all the damaged buildings in the WTC complex that day, only the three owned by Silverstein collapsed like houses of cards.

It is, at the very least, an odd coincidence.

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Do you know of any other highrisers that have come down in this fashion as a result of fire?
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...collapses.html

Well, I'm far from an expert in structural engineering, and I think there is some danger when laypeople try to interpret complex subjects without the requisite background. But, to the best of my understanding, WTC 7 sustained moderate to heavy damage when it was struck by falling debris from the north tower, which put considerable stress on the integrity of the building. That, in turn, was exacerbated by the unfought fires, which created enough heat to cause the building's steel to both expand and weaken, and those factors in combination were enough to cause its collapse. So its collapse was the result of considerably more than just fire.

As for naming other buildings that have collapsed in a similar fashion, no, I can't. But can you name any other buildings with a design similiar to that of WTC 7 that were subject to the same degree of trauma, and then had uncontrolled fires burning for several hours? The sample size is, I'm guessing, somewhat small.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Fair enough.

I'm not going for a Pull-itzer in analyzing Silverstein's words. More interesting to me is that of all the damaged buildings in the WTC complex that day, only the three owned by Silverstein collapsed like houses of cards.

Do you know of any other highrisers that have come down in this fashion as a result of fire?


http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...collapses.html

Once again, ridiculous inferences and faulty logic from circumstantial "evidence". In the first place, those were not the only buildings in the complex, nor the only ones in NYC, that Silverstein leased. In the second place, obviously the targets were the biggest towers, 1 and 2, which happened to be his. Is it so hard for you to believe that the terrorists would target the twin towers, the signature structures of the complex?

I know, I know, WTC 7 WTC 7 yadayadayada.....

[Dark Horse]

Square, it doesn't really matter if it concerns a skyscraper or not (although it does help to study that steel-framed building will not come down due to fire). Fire and controlled demolition are two completely different entities. Their results and devastating don't look remotely the same.

We can say that the 'experts' should decide this issue for us. But the problem with that approach is that true experts are few and far between, and, more importantly, that their opinion can be bought. (for instance, the whole world agrees on the greenhouse effect, but one can always find an academic to write an opinion to the contrary. This technique of controlling public opinion is very common).

Understanding develops in stages. Developing an initial understanding in a case as this comes down to grasping probabilities. Something close to the hearts of gamblers. The gelling of the pieces of the puzzle does not rely on a single piece, but rather on the different pieces of the puzzle all pointing in the same direction. For instance, in the case of fire versus controlled demolition it would be helpful to compare a large sample size of devastation caused by each. We could then add probabilities about all three buildings being owned by same person. And throw in the separate probability of falling debris bringing down a highriser in the -dramatic!- fashion of WTC #7. We would then also add the probability of the owner mentioning that they decided to pull it. After all that, we let the issue rest. We would not make a final conclusion. We would merely have a set of probabilities that would lean towards either fire or controlled demolition. (we could add more probabilities, such as why the metal - the proof - was immediately removed from the scene, but that would get into motives, which is part of a later stage of investigation. That part of the investigation would also involve the series of explosions heard by firemen in the Twin Towers).

We would then move on to the next piece of the puzzle, and proceed in the same careful manner. In other words, this is a lengthy process. If, one point or another, it becomes obvious that all the arrows are pointing in the same direction, then we can start zero-ing in on the true nature of 9/11 with greater certainty. And it may then become possible to place it within a larger context of world politics.

The question is: how many people are willing to do this research? And how many would rather rely on the opinions of 'experts' and propagandists with easy access to the air waves? So we have to understand that an open and objective debate is going to be interfered with by those who don't want their belief system destroyed. Coldhardfacts displays the signs of such individuals, and he is far from alone. There is, after all, security in numbers... It remains to be seen if he still accuses me of 'believing what I want to belief', while I'm actually in favor of destroying all beliefs, because truth alone is beyond destruction. His unfamiliarity with independent research, - he's sidestepping this by leaving it all to 'experts' - is not an excuse; but it is understandable.

(FWIW, academics that have spend a tremendous amount of research on 9/11 tend to come up with the same conclusions [not the easy 'research' that ignores half the facts, such as behind the official, in-house 9/11 report]. Such shift from the official account in itself is a rather unusual phenomenon. Of course, once they present their conclusions, they are easily discarded as conspiracy theorists by a public that has no understanding of the amount of research behind those conclusions. Shock and awe did not start in Iraq. It began on 9/11. And a large part of the American public was shocked into unquestioning obedience; by an administration remarkably willing, and ready, to assign itself absolute power...)