Page 1 of 1
Posted on September 22 at 6:53 p.m.
Mr. Greenspan states:
"The truther movement, after eight years, has yet to come up with ONE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE that there was a US Government conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center . . ."
(by the way, that would be "SHRED")
I am underwhelmed by your claims, Mr. Greenspan. First of all the "truthers" do not, as a complete group, claim there is a government conspiracy. The "truthers" claim that the "official" story does not explain the known facts of that day, as evidenced by videos, samples, interviews, etc. The 'truthers" have built a huge body of evidence to refute the official story. If you don't know this, then you should probably do something about your ignorance in the matter before mouthing off nasty comments about them. Free country, or not, it's utterly non-productive to keep mouthing off individual claims if you can't back them up. It is, in fact, irritating.
On Twin Towers, Twin Myths?
Posted on September 21 at 9:09 a.m.
"Bottom line: The Indy article is a mass of lies and the supporters in the comments section continue the delusions."
Now that certainly adds lots to the discussion.
I asked you for evidence, and yours is that the admin (Bush admin, obviously) has not been brought down for eight years. So, if not caught in eight years, they must be innocent. hmmm.
In fact, it's not even about whether or not the Gvt. did it. It's about explaining inconsistencies between the "official" account of what happened, and the evidence that has been uncovered.
One more thing: this article did not even take a particular side. It simply lays out the arguments of both prominent explanations.
Who are you protecting?
On The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute
Posted on September 20 at 6:33 p.m.
gaviotamalitia, I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts, based on your education. My "inspiration" for writing, however, comes from the dangerously ingnorant remarks of SezMe
-- as in "Says Me?" Is that right? Implication, by any chance, that whatever you say is correct, and cannot be challenged? --
Your attitude is that of a punk. If you "know" that
"NOBODY in the building demolition business thinks the bigger the building the more room for error," then offer some evidence. Otherwise, zip your lips. Do YOU work for the demolition industry? Which one? Where? Are YOU an architect? Maybe you were Einstein's assistant! Cool. Tell us. Don't just run off at the mouth. I'm really getting sick of that, so many just running off at the mouth, with nothing to back their claims.
I'm no expert, but when I watch those videos of the buildings coming down, they sure do NOT look natural to me. Planes, very light, hollow tubes, hit upper floor of HUGE buildings, some smoke and fire, then buildings DISINTEGRATE INTO SAND. Never mind building 7, which is NOT EVEN HIT!
Says me: there is no, none, zero reason that a real investigation not be launched. Arguments from the likes of "SezMe" certainly do NOT help enlighten. If nothing amiss of the official accounts is found, fine. Big deal. If something IS found, that is a deal so big, it's bound to keep us all up at night. Why is there even an argument against an independent investigation? That alone scares me (and, of course, the teacher who was in charge of teaching Critical Thinking to "SezMe".")
Revealing the direct connection between the history of U.S. intervention ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month