* Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>by ancatdoh (Fri Dec 22 2006 06:20:35) Ignore this >User | Report Abuse > > >------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------- > >You wrote: > >"Why are you keep talking about my reading skills or >college degrees? Does it matter? You are so out of >focus. You never read my articles and even my videos." > >YES. Reading skills and college degrees matter. > >As for "your" articles, I've read all of them and MANY >more. That's what you have to do to earn a Master's >degree in Mass Communication. You have to read, >re-read, analyze, compare and the write about all >those sources, evalaute what they say compared to >actual HISTORY, then write about it to the >satisfaction and approval of three PhDs, all of whom, >by the way, are former reporters THEMSELVES. > >You've picked out a few articles that only RAISE >QUESTIONS. > >The Payne Stewart article is meaningless in the >context of proving a 9/11 conspiracy. That jet's >TRANSPONDER was working, so it was very easy to track. >The hijackers turned OFF the transponders in their >flights. Ever read raw radar returns with THOUSANDS of >flights in the NY area?? > >Your article on the Windsor building ITSELF explains >why it remained stading: > >"However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the >buildings mentioned above, was framed in >steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it >is described on a separate page, which notes >differences between the response of these different >types of structures to fires." > >WTC was an all steel tube structure (I'm sure you have >no idea what that means), and steel loses it's >strength when it's exposed to a fire fed by thousands >of gallons of jet fuel AS WELL as being hit by an >airliner. > >Get an education and live about 30 more years, kid. > > >by ancatdoh (Fri Dec 22 2006 18:21:46) Ignore this >User | Report Abuse > > >------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------- > >Down, boy! Man have I got you rattled! Call me all the >names and wring your little hands all you want. > >People who put down those with college degrees come >from all walks of life, but they have one thing in >common: They don't have college degrees. Your quotes >"prove" NOTHING. They're supposition, guesswork, >conjecture, speculation, suspicions and QUESTIONS. > >You wrote: "You also didn't bring any single "Proof" >to convince everyone that 9/11 was not an inside job >and Iraq War was legitimate." > >Here's a lesson in critical thinking you might learn >if you ever go to college: You can't prove a negative. >It's up to you to prove there was a conspiracy, but >all you've done is raise questions and drawn terribly >wrong conclusions based on your lack of knowledge. > >You've not refuted Iraq was a long time state >supporter of Islamic terror groups that offered OBL >asylum in 1999 and was in violation of 17 UN >resolutions because all that is TRUE. You know NOTHING >of Middle East history. > >You've posted several articles from USA Today, meaning >you consider it a reliable source. > >Was Steve Andersen, Director of Communications for USA >Today, LYING when he said: > >"A few moments later, as I was looking down at my >desk, the plane caught my eye. > >It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that >I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then >it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in >horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked >slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground >and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon >exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black >smoke. Then white smoke." > >Were all these other eyewitnesses ALSO LYING?: > ><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_ey >ewitnesses.html">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_ >pentagon_eyewitnesses.html</a> > >The aircraft was a 757, not a 747, BTW. You don't even >have the aircraft type correct. > >Here's a lot more you don't know about the 757, >including photos of an American Airlines 757 wreckage >at the Pentagon: > ><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/p >g1">http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 ></a> > >The hole is the diameter of the fuselage, not the >width of the wingspan. The wings of an airplane going >over 400 miles per hour into thick concrete walls and >reinforced steel columns do not, under any >circumstances, bend or shear off. They shred into >fragments, along with the rest of the plane. > >The damage caused by Flight 93 was more extensive than >the photos in conspiracy websites show, and the lack >of large pieces is fully consistent with an aircraft >weighing over 200,000 lbs hitting the ground nose >first at over 500 miles per hour. It also happened at >the ValuJet flight 592 crash in 1996. No peices that >couldn't be carried by a man were recovered. > >Here's what happened when a much smaller ATR-72 >weighing ONE FIFTH of a 757 hit soft earth: > ><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w19941031.htm">http >://www.planecrashinfo.com/w19941031.htm</a> > >And here's one from CNN--you CAN make cell phone calls >from a plane: > >"In July, American Airlines and cell phone maker >Qualcomm held a demonstration in which in-cabin calls >were made using commercially available cell phones >that connected to worldwide terrestrial phone >networks. > >The passengers on the plane could both receive and >make calls while on the flight. > >Among those making calls on that two-hour flight were >government officials, executives of the two companies >and reporters." > ><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/09/technology/person >altech/cellphones_inflight/index.htm">http://money.cnn. >com/2004/12/09/technology/personaltech/cellphones_infli >ght/index.htm</a> > >And once again, you poor reading skills are evident: >Steel doesn't have to MELT, it loses it's STRENGTH at >those temps. The structure won't support the weight of >110 floors, one acre by one acre, of 4 inches of >concrete. It collapses ON ITSELF. It takes demolition >experts several weeks to prepare much smaller >buildings for collapse by cutting numerous support >columns almost through and wiring a series of linear >shaped charges to detonate in sequence. Yet somehow >they did that at 3 WTC buildings without being noticed >or seen in any surveillance video??? > >You didn't QUOTE a SINGLE one of my sentences, genius. >Use the copy feature of your mouse and paste where >I've said anything RESEMBLING what you PRETEND I've >said.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.